TITLE

STUDENT NAME

AUGUST 2017

(Dissertation submitted in part-fulfilment of the requirements

for the BSc (Hons) Psychology degree)
 Acknowledgements

Thank you to all of my lecturers throughout the course. A special thank you to Professor
Xxxx for the invaluable comments and feedback given throughout the research and writing
process, including kind words for the times that I thought it would be impossible to complete
this dissertation. Her guidance has been second to none!

A thank you is also owed to all of my wonderful friends for their moral support and
encouragement to keep me motivated.

Finally, I would also like to thank all of my family for their unconditional love and support,
especially my mum, Jit, and my gorgeous children, Sonia, Amelia and Cameron (whom I owe
some fun days out)!
 Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between empathy and
prosocial behaviour with the expectation of establishing the altruistic personality,
concomitantly, testing the empathy-altruism theory proposed by Batson, Duncan, Ackerman,
Buckley and Birch (1981). Based on previous literature, it was hypothesised that a
significant positive correlation between empathy and prosocial behaviour would be found.
The study utilised quantitative responses to an online survey. A total of 43 respondents from
Higher Education (H. E.) Institutions in the UK completed the questionnaire by accessing the
HTML link provided through social media platform. Pearson correlation was performed to
evaluate the hypothesised relationships between the variables. Significant positive
relationships were observed between Empathy and Prosocial Behaviour (r(41)=.70, p<.001);
Empathy and the HEXACO-60 personality dimensions: Honesty-Humility, Emotionality,
and Openness to experience. No significant relationships were found between Prosocial
Behaviour and HEXACO-60. The data corroborate the empathy-altruism theory and support
the hypothesis for the current study, demonstrating that Empathy influences Prosocial
Behaviour and that Personality impacts Empathy. Implications for these findings and study
limitations are discussed including recommendations for further research.
Keywords: altruism, empathy, prosocial behaviour, empathy-altruism theory,
altruistic-motivation theory, HEXACO, TEQ, PSA
 Contents
Title .………………………………………………………………………………….. i
Acknowledgments ..………………………………………………………………….. ii
Abstract …………....…………………………………………………………………. iii
Contents ……………………………………………………………………………… iv
Abbreviations ………………………………………………………………………… v
Chapter 1: Introduction ………………………………………………………………. 1
Chapter 2: Altruism ………………………………………………………………….. 2
Chapter 3: Empathy ………………………………………………………………….. 5
Chapter 4: Personality ……………………………………………………………….. 8
Chapter 5: Three Concepts Together ….…………………………………..…………. 11
5.1 Purpose of the Research ………………….………………………….. 13
Chapter 6: Method …………………………………………………………………....
6.1 Design …………………………………….………………………….. 14
6.2 Participants …………………………….……………………………. 14
6.3 Materials/Measures .............................................................................. 14
6.3.1 Prosocial Behaviour ………...……...………………………….. 15
6.3.2 Empathy ………….….………………………………………..... 15
6.3.3 Personality .…………………….……………...……………….. 15
6.4 Procedure ….…………………………….…………………………... 16
6.5 Ethical Considerations ...………...…………………………………... 17
6.6 Data Analysis ………………………………………………………... 17
Chapter 7: Results …………………………………………………………………… 18
Chapter 8: Discussion / Conclusion …………………………………………...….…. 20
References …………………………………………………………………………… 25
Appendix A Ethical Approval Correspondence ..………...………………………….. 35
Appendix B Participant Invitation Email …………………………………………..... 37
Appendix C Participant Information Sheet ………………………………………….. 38
Appendix D Participant Informed Consent ….………..……………………………... 40
Appendix E Online Survey comprising HEXACO-60; TEQ; PSA …………………. 41

iv
Abbreviations

A: Agreeableness
C: Conscientiousness
E: Extraversion
EPQ: Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
FFM: Five-Factor Model
H: Honesty-Humility
HEXACO-PI-R / HEXACO-60: HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised scale
H. E. Higher Education
L: Lie scale
N: Neuroticism
O: Openness to experience
P: Psychoticism
PSA: Prosocialness Scale for Adults’
TEQ: Toronto Empathy Questionnaire
X: eXtraversion

v
 1. Introduction
This dissertation presents an empirical analysis of the relationship between Empathy
and Prosocial Behaviour among a sample population of 43 participants from Higher
Education (H. E.) Institutions in the UK. In a world that is increasingly encouraging selfish
acts driven by free-market global economic determinants, altruism is perhaps, a saving grace
and a reprieve for the spirit of human kindness. It is hoped that this valuable facet of the
human condition be cherished and preserved towards a move to better citizenship and
harmonious societies. One renowned example is the philanthropist, Bill Gates, who helps
third world countries. Gates (2010) together with Warren Buffet, initiated ‘The Giving
Pledge’, a charitable organisation encouraging wealthy people of the world to contribute their
wealth to philanthropic causes. A leading anthropologist, Edith Turner (2012), stipulated that
helping individuals through genuine interactions can bring feelings of joy. Altruistic
contributions from people can thus be a measure of comfort for persons experiencing
unsettled times, whilst providing a framework for thinking about well-being in the world
(Stoller, 2016). Stoller claims that supporting each other can bring mutual gratification and
be a tonic for contemporary social life. These insights prompted reflection on the practice of
and influences on altruism. A relationship between empathic concern and altruism dates back
almost three centuries when the basic idea of this theory was first proposed by philosophers’
David Hume (1777) and Adam Smith (1759). However, much debate continues over the
existence of true altruism (Allport, 1960; Batson, 2011; Buss & Craik, 1983; Piliavin &
Charng, 1990). Similarly, each person’s willingness and ability to help another in a given
situation varies from person to person (Batson, Lishner & Stocks, 2015).
This study specifically explores the relationship between empathy and prosocial
behaviour to assess whether the altruistic personality can be realised. Research suggests that
high levels of Empathy are generally shown to be associated with Prosocial Behaviour which
culminates into the altruistic personality. Consequently, a growing body of research verifies
that empathy is a fundamental attribute and key antecedent towards prosocial behaviour
alongside understanding altruistic acts (Batson, 2011; Eisenberg, Miller, Schaller, Fabes,
Fultz, Shell & Shea, 1989; Farside, 2007; Hoffman, 2008). However, there are two schools
of thought when it comes to altruism: the endocentric pseudo-altruistic approach (Hoffman,
1981; Yoeli, Hoffman, Rand & Martin, 2013), and the exocentric altruistic approach (Batson,
Ahmad & Lishner, 2002; Batson, 2011). There has been a long running and still unresolved
debate among researchers about how to properly conceptualise and measure altruistic acts.
Clarifying the
 1
strengths and limitations of these approaches will be important to advancing research in this
area. For the purpose of the present study this project focused on true-altruism which
requires a holistic approach that enables one to comprehend and/or distinguish between
sympathy and empathy.
The empathy-altruism theory is being increasingly employed among researchers
towards understanding the phenomena of prosocial acts. Contemporarily, this theory was
proposed by Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley and Birch (1981), and has been
operationalised by a number of different instruments including the Toronto Empathy
Questionnaire (TEQ; Spreng, McKinnon, Mar & Levine, 2009), and Prosocialness Scale for
Adults (PSA; Caprara, Steca, Zelli & Capanna, 2005).
The overall context and chapter outline for the present study is as follows: Chapter 2
provides the reader with historical background vis-à-vis altruism and identifies areas of
controversy in the existing literature. As a consequence this chapter makes a distinction
between the different theories (pseudo-altruism and true-altruism), with particular emphasis
on the conceptualisation of true-altruism pertinent to this study. Chapter 3 discusses empathy
vis-à-vis prosocial behaviour and makes a succinct distinction between empathy and
sympathy through conducting a literature search and review of previous studies concerning
empathy. Chapter 4 clarifies personality traits vis-à-vis the HEXACO Personality Inventory-
Revised scale (HEXACO-PI-R; Ashton & Lee, 2009) and reviews previous studies
concerning altruistic personality traits. Additionally, it provides a succinct conceptualisation
of what constitutes the altruistic personality. Chapter 5 draws the three concepts
(Altruism, Empathy, Personality) together subsequently followed by the rationale and
hypothesis for this study. Chapter 6 provides the reader with the important factors in the
conceptualisation and design of this project, including details regarding the population,
methods and measures used for this study. Chapter 7 provides the reader with the results of
the online survey administered to a H. E. population from the UK. Alphas, means and
standard deviations are reported followed by a correlation matrix between all three variables
provided in table format. Chapter 8 clarifies the findings and develops conclusions
accordingly in relation to earlier research reviewed. It ends with a summary of the report as a
whole and outlines the recommendations made for further research.

2. Altruism
The aim of this chapter is to review pseudo-altruistic and true-altruistic theories with
 2
particular emphasis on true-altruism. First, it provides the background to altruism followed
by divergent conceptualisations of altruism. Second, it provides a rationale for the
operationalisation of altruism through the PSA (Caprara et al., 2005).
The word altruism originates from the Latin, alteri, which means other people or
somebody else. It was defined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte, as altruisme for an
antonym of egoism (Comte, 1875; Paul, Miller & Paul, 1993). However, much debate exists
over the definition and existence of true altruism (Allport, 1960; Batson, 2011; Buss & Craik,
1983; Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Recognised as the 'specificity versus generality'
controversy, questions have been raised, primarily, in the area of personality and moral
behaviour (Rushton, Chrisjohn, Fekken, 1981). This is because of the uncertainty behind an
individual’s motivation to help another. Thus, in order to understand the development of
prosocial behaviour and the dynamics of interpersonal interaction, motivation has important
implications. Hence, in recent years, interest in specific conceptualisations of altruism has
grown steadily in social psychological research (Farside, 2007). The most common theories
are the reciprocity norm, social exchange, kin-selection, empathy-altruism hypothesis and
altruistic personality traits (Feigin, Owens & Goodyear-Smith, 2014). To this end, a
distinction between two types of altruism, namely, pseudo-altruistic approach (selfishly
motivated) and altruistic approach (selflessly motivated) follows.
Advocates of Pseudo-altruistic (endocentric) theories postulate that no act of sharing,
helping or sacrificing can be described as truly altruistic (Hoffman, 1981). This is because
they believe the actor may receive an intrinsic reward in the form of self-gratification
(psychological egoism). Trivers (1971) and Yoeli et al. (2013) argue that people only engage
in prosocial behaviour towards others if they consider that those others are likely to
reciprocate, known as reciprocity theory. Similarly, Homans (2016), a key contributor to the
social exchange theory asserts altruism only exists when benefits to the self, outweigh costs
to the self. His early studies investigated social structures, shaped by repeated exchanges and
the ways in which these structures, both coerce and enable actors to exercise power and
influence. In contrast, Fehr and Fischbacher (2003) argue that humans are more altruistic
towards close kin than to distant kin or non kin. This evolutionary theory known as kin-
selection proposes that people help others who are related to them because they want their
genes to survive for future generations. Similarly, Hoffman (2013) used mathematical
simulations to demonstrate that kin-selection is one of the possible fundamental processes,
which affects the evolution of social behaviour. The underlying view of the above theories is
that altruism entails an egotistical
3
motivational state because the end goal tends to be to improve one’s own welfare (Batson,
2008; Dambrun & Ricard, 2011).
Advocates of the altruistic (exocentric) approach consider highest moral quality to be
key (Bar-Tal, 1976; Berkowitz, 1972; Krebs, 1970; Leeds, 1963; Staub, 1978). This concept
specifies that moral concern signifies caring about the welfare of others which can lead to
altruism (Carlo, Koller, Eisenberg, DaSilva & Frohlich, 1996). More importantly, this
approach agrees that altruistic acts: must benefit another person, must be performed
voluntarily and intentionally, the benefit must be the goal itself, and must be performed
without expecting any external reward (Karylowski, 1982). There is evidence to suggest that
children as young as two display a variety of prosocial behaviours, such as sharing, helping
and comforting others (Zahne-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, Wagner & Chapman, 1992). These
infants provide support to strangers even when no reward can be expected for helping
(Warneken & Tomasello, 2006).
The fundamental concepts underpinning the altruistic approach are: principled moral
reasoning (Kohlberg, 1976); internalized prosocial values (Staub, 1974); and personal
disposition sometimes called altruistic personality (Oliner & Oliner, 1988). Moreover, the
empathy-altruism hypothesis, also known as the other oriented emotion, asserts that people
are more likely to help others if they feel empathy towards them. Batson et al. (1981)
substantiated the empathy-altruism hypothesis by running a manipulated experiment on
psychology students. Students’ motives to help or not help during two different escape
scenarios (difficult and easy) were scrutinised. As hypothesised high empathy participants
were willing to help, regardless of whether it was difficult or easy to escape. More recent
investigations (Batson, 2011; Batson, Ahmad & Lishner, 2002; Batson, Batson, Slingsby,
Harrell, Peekna & Todd, 1991) provide some evidence to suggest that true altruism actually
exists, and is far more prevalent and powerful than is recognised. So, although individuals
often behave selfishly, there is research suggesting people also have a proclivity to help
others, with the ultimate goal being the recipient’s well-being and no expectation of external
rewards (Batson 2011; Krupp, 2013; Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Consequently, there is focus
on altruistic personality traits which describe a person’s average tendencies (Sherman,
Rauthmann, Brown, Serfass & Jones, 2015).
It can be summarised that psychological altruism is a motivational state, signifying
empathic concern, with the intention to improve another’s welfare, without regard for one’s
own interests (Batson, 2010; Bierhoff, 2002). A picture is beginning to emerge illustrating
that empathy leads to potential prosocial behaviour. Therefore, personality characteristics
such as an inclination to be empathic toward others, or general agreeableness, provide the
building
4
blocks on which true altruism is based (Eisenberg et al., 1989). This classification is of
special interest to the present study, since it considers moral quality to be a dimension on
which altruism is based. Therefore, this research will specifically concentrate on altruism as
a selfless act which benefits others with no expectation of reward.
It is possible to measure altruism via self-report Likert scales (Likert, 1932). Some of
the key scales are: the Self Report Altruism scale (SRA; Rushton et al., 1981) which
measures altruistic traits based on the frequency of helping behaviours; the Helping
Orientation Questionnaire (HOQ; Romer, Gruder & Lizzardo, 1986) which measures four
helping orientations: altruistic, receptive giving, inner sustaining and selfishness; and the
Helping Attitudes Scale (HAS; Nickell, 1998) which measures beliefs, feelings and
behaviours related to helping. Nevertheless, altruistic tendencies in the present study have
been operationalised by PSA (Caprara et al., 2005).
Caprara et al. (2005) employed the PSA among a large sample of 2,574 Italian adults.
They reported good internal consistency reliability (alpha coefficients .91). Caprara and
Steca (2007) employed PSA among a sample of 1,324 Italian adults within a wide-ranging
age group of 20-90 years. They also reported good internal consistency reliability of alpha to
.93. Sachet (2013) employed the PSA among a sample of 60 undergraduate students. She
reported good internal consistency reliability of alpha to .90. Strakatý (2016) employed the
PSA among a sample of 150 volunteer workers from various non-profit volunteer
organisations. He reported good internal consistency reliability of alpha to .89.
Against this background, it is the aim of the present study to assess altruism by
utilising the PSA inventory. The reason for this operationalisation as opposed to the other
scales mentioned above is that this questionnaire is more contemporary and refined in
comparison to the others. The PSA also demonstrates good internal reliability as detailed in
the studies above.

3. Empathy
This chapter explores a number of different definitions of empathy and presents the
definition that will be utilised in this study. First, it discusses the definition of empathy
followed by the important distinction between empathy and sympathy. This chapter also
provides a rationale for the operationalisation of empathy through TEQ (Spreng et al., 2009),
justifying its employment in this study. In order to understand another person’s subjective
experiences one will draw upon a sophisticated set of processes. Although key differences
exist between such processes, the umbrella term often used for these processes is empathy
5
(Farside, 2007). Empathy allows individuals to appreciate the world from another person’s
perspective by sharing the emotional state of that person in distress (Hewstone, Stroebe &
Jonas, 2012). However, there is no uniform definition of empathy because as a construct
there are a number of definitions. For example, some researchers propose that empathy
encompasses only identifying emotion (Ickes, 2003), whereas others postulate that empathy
involves both recognising and indirectly experiencing emotion (Reniers, Corcoran, Drake,
Shryane, & Völlm, 2011). Further, while some researchers theorise sympathy as an element
of empathy resulting in helping behaviours (Håkansson & Montgomery, 2003), others may
conceptualise sympathy as an outward other-oriented benevolent response by merely wishing
for that person to feel better through showing concern or sadness (Eisenberg, Eggum &
Giunta, 2010).
Nevertheless, although empathy is a slippery construct leading to conflicting
viewpoints, it is important to understand the construct of empathy. Eisenberg (2000) defined
empathy as an affective response, which stems from understanding another’s emotional
condition which entails an awareness of what the other person is feeling. Contemporary
theorists suggest there are two main types of empathy: affective and cognitive aspects
(Decety & Jackson, 2006). Affective (emotional) empathy is conceptualised as the ability to
be sensitive to and vicariously experience the feelings of others (Naybar, 2008; Reniers et al.,
2011). While cognitive empathy, also known as theory of mind (Blair, 2005), is
conceptualised as the ability to recognise and respect the emotional states of others by
visualising their perspective (Ickes, 2003). However, Baron-Cohen and Wheelright (2004)
argue that both affective and cognitive approaches are essential to define empathy, and that in
most cases both approaches are not easily separated.
Sympathy, on the other hand, can be defined as an emotional response toward
another, which stems from feelings of sorrow or concern for that person without necessarily
showing understanding (Eisenberg, 2000). Sympathy is, therefore, conceptualised as an
empathic response which usually stems from the affective component of empathy but not part
of it (Reniers et al., 20011). In short, a person may feel the need to reduce another’s distress
but may not actually act on this desire. Yet, Baron-Cohen and Wheelright (2004) believe
sympathy can also involve both cognitive and affective components of empathy. They
postulate that sympathy can develop from empathy which subsequently results in helping
behaviours. Consequently, although definitions of empathy are multi-faceted and
interrelated, there is clear evidence to corroborate the link between empathy and empathy
related responses with prosocial behaviour (Carlo, Hausmann, Christiansen & Randall, 2003;
Eisenberg et al., 2010;
6
Lockwood, Seara-Cardoso & Viding, 2014). In line with this, Dovidio, Piliavin, Schroeder
and Penner (2006) assert that empathetic individuals usually experience a state of arousal
comprising responses that entail physiological and subjective characteristics which precede
prosocial acts. Moreover, two guiding theorists (Eisenberg et al., 2010; Hoffman, 2008)
acknowledge that the ability to engage in other-oriented helping necessitates emotion
regulation. They believe this arises from affective empathy which is integral to prosocial
behaviour. This is consistent with (Decety & Jackson, 2004; Destano, 2015) who also
postulate that emotion regulation is a prerequisite as a component of empathy. They claim
that it is important to manage and reinforce introspective relations between self and others.
Because without emotion regulation one would experience personal distress, and
subsequently be less able to engage in helping behaviours.
Conversely, in their investigation into the existence of true altruism, Maner, Luce,
Neuberg, Cialdini, Brown and Sagarin (2002) found a significant zero-order relationship
between empathic concern and helping. Consistent with this notion, the negative state relief
model (Cialdini, Schaller, Houlihan, Arps, Fultz & Beaman, 1987) indicate that an individual
may help another person in distress to alleviate their own undesirable feelings (Hogg &
Vaughan, 2011). However, Farside (2007) disputes these claims, and argues that if an
individual holds the ability to attribute their mental state to another person in distress they
possibly have the potential to be altruistic. Consequently, the long running, and still
unresolved debate continues in regards to empathy-induced helping. Due to the overall
consensus among many researchers, however, it can be summarised that empathy and
concepts of sympathy could lead to prosocial behaviour. Therefore, this study specifically
considers empathy as an affective response that is similar to that of a distressed individual,
whereby empathisers are cognisant to the feelings of others and can vicariously experience
those feelings.
 There are numerous instruments available in the public domain that can be utilised to
measure empathy. However, some of these instruments are out-dated or inadequate to some
extent. Some examples are: the Empathy Scale (EM; Hogan, 1969) comprising 64 items
which assesses four factors: social self-confidence, even-temperedness, sensitivity, and
nonconformity (Johnson, Cheek & Smither, 1983). Yet, only one of these factors (sensitivity)
is directly related to empathy (Davis, 1994). The Questionnaire Measure of Emotional
Empathy (QMEE; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972) contains seven subscales. Although some
items in the QMEE measure affective empathy, the scale as a whole may be confounded as
the
items tap a single construct – emotional arousability to the environment – as opposed to an
7
individual’s emotions (Mehrabian, Young, & Sato, 1988). A more current measure, the
Empathy Quotient (EQ; Baron-Cohen & Wheelright, 2004) comprises 60 questions with 40
questions tapping empathy and 20 filler items included to distract participants from
persistently focusing on empathy. However, empathy in the present study has been
operationalised by TEQ (Spreng et al., 2009). The TEQ primarily conceptualises empathy as
an affective (emotional) process. It comprises 16 questions and is designed as a single factor
and brief measure of empathy following reviews of other empathy instruments. Therefore,
the reason for this operationalisation as opposed to the other inventories mentioned above is
that this scale is short, clear and homogenous with a robust single factor structure. Moreover,
it measures empathy aptly in relation to this study and has demonstrated that it is internally
reliable as detailed in the studies below.
Spreng et al. (2009) employed the TEQ among a sample of 200 University of Toronto
undergraduate students. They reported very good internal consistency reliability of alpha
coefficients for the entire set of items to .85. Lelorain, Sultan, Zenasni, Catu-Pinault, Jaury,
Boujut and Rigal (2013) employed the TEQ among a sample of 295 French general
practitioners. They also reported good internal consistency reliability of alpha to .71. Celik,
Saritas and Catalbas (2013) employed the TEQ among a sample of 376 student teachers.
They reported very good internal consistency of alpha to .82. Stefanović, Dunjić-Kostić,
Gligorić, Lačković, Damjanović, and Ivković (2015) employed the TEQ among a sample of
363 medical students. They reported good internal consistency of alpha to .70. Against this
background, the aim of the present study is to assess empathy by utilising the TEQ.

4. Personality
 This chapter will briefly review trait theories of personality with particular emphasis
on the six factor model. First, it provides the background to the theory followed by
conceptualisation of personality traits. Second, it provides a rationale for the
operationalisation of the six factor model through the HEXACO-60 inventory (Ashton and
Lee, 2009).
Trait theories are usually based on findings from lexical studies with the use of factor
analysis. Accordingly, language based classifications have been used as a method for
developing personality models which are organised hierarchically. The three most widely
accepted and used trait theories are Eysenckian Model, viz. the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) Big Five-Factor Model (FFM; Costa &
8
McCrae, 1992), and HEXACO Model (Ashton & Lee, 2004). Eysenck’s (1975) model of
personality maintains three orthogonal higher order factors to assess individual differences.
The first factor is expressed on the continuum from Introversion (I) to Extraversion (E).
Those who score high on the E scale are generally characterised as sociable, lively and
carefree individuals, whereas low scorers tend to be more reserved, reflective and self-
contained in their approach to life. The second factor is expressed on the continuum from
emotional stability to Neuroticism (N). High scorers on the N scale are generally
characterised as anxious, depressed and irrational individuals, whereas low scorers tend to be
more stable, and self-confident. The third factor is expressed on the continuum from
tendermindedness to Psychoticism (P). High scorers on the P scale are generally
characterised as toughminded, antisocial and aggressive individuals, whereas low scorers
tend to be more prosocial and tenderminded in nature. Finally, this personality measure also
includes the lie (L) scale to guard against dissimilation. Those who score high on this scale
tend to reflect high levels of social conformity (Poropat, 2011).
The FFM developed by Costa and McCrae (1992) proposes five factors to efficiently
summarise individual differences. These five dimensions are often referred to as the ‘Big
Five’: Extraversion (E) – high scorers tend to be assertive and sociable individuals rather
than quiet and reserved; Agreeableness (A) – high scorers tend to be cooperative and polite
rather than antagonistic and rude; Conscientiousness (C) – high scorers tend to be task-
focused and orderly rather than distractible and disorganised; Neuroticism (N) – high scorers
tend to be prone to negative emotions rather than being emotionally resilient; and finally,
individuals Open to experience (O) – have a broad rather than narrow range of interests
(Mcrae, & John, 1992). However, Paunonen and Ashton (2001) argue that the predictive
value of the FFM on specific behaviours and attitudes is often found to be weak. In addition,
Ashton and Lee (2004) claimed the FFM was not as comprehensive as initially thought,
postulating methodological issues with cross-cultural research. Ashton and Lee (2004)
argued that FFM dimensions were not universal due to many languages lacking one-to-one
translations.
Consequently, Ashton and Lee (2004), established the six factor model of personality.
They assert that instead of a 5-factor solution, factor analysis leads to a 6-factor solution.
These factors are Honesty-Humility (H), Emotionality (E), eXtraversion (X), Agreeableness
(A), Conscientiousness (C) and Openness to experience (O). Each of these factors
incorporate four facets with an interstitial facet called altruism, representing a blend of the H,
E and A factors. H comprises sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance and modesty; E comprises
fearfulness,
9
anxiety, dependence and sentimentality; X comprises social self-esteem, social boldness,
sociability and liveliness; A comprises forgiveness, gentleness, flexibility and patience; C
comprises organisation, diligence, perfectionism and prudence; and O comprises aesthetic
appreciation, inquisitiveness, creativity and unconventionality. These facets are also
measured by polar opposites on positive and negative ends of a continuum. All six measures
proposed by Ashton and Lee (2004) have been operationalised in a series of self-completion
instruments for application among adults, including the HEXACO-PI (2004) and HEXACO-
60 (2009).
Ashton and Lee (2009) employed the HEXACO-60 among a sample of 936 Canadian
undergraduate students. They reported very good internal consistency reliability for all six
scales of alpha coefficients from .77 to .80. Bashiri, Barahmand, Akabri, Ghamari and
Vusugi (2011) employed the HEXACO among a sample of 613 Iranian undergraduate
students. They also reported very good internal consistency reliability for all six scales of
alpha from .71 to .81. Barbarovic and Sverko (2013) employed the HEXACO-60 among a
sample of 1004 Croatian undergraduate students. They reported very good internal
consistency reliability for all six scales of alpha coefficients from .77 to .80. Wakabayashi
(2014) employed the HEXACO among a sample of 492 Japanese undergraduate students. He
reported exceptional internal consistency reliability for all six scales of alpha from .84 to .90.
To explore altruism, Aghababaei, Mohammadtabar, and Saffarinia (2014) employed the
HEXACO among a sample of 223 employees from an urban area of Tehran. They reported
good internal consistency reliability for the six factors ranging from .60 to .75.
 For the purpose of this study personality will be measured quantitatively by utilising
the HEXACO-60 personality inventory. The reason for employing this operationalisation, as
opposed to the FFM, is that HEXACO-60 reflects some pertinent personality variance not
represented within the FFM model (Ashton, Lee & de Vries, 2014). There is particular
interest in the six-dimensional framework because it includes the additional trait, Honesty-
Humility. The narrow facet-level traits incorporated in H have been verified by, Zettler,
Hilbig and Heydasch (2013), as a measure of prosocial behaviour. What is more, the traits A
and E, broadly epitomise personality characteristics associated with altruism (Ashton & Lee,
2009). These three dimensions, therefore, contribute separately towards an overall
disposition within individuals to engage in prosocial acts. More importantly, HEXACO-60
explicitly measures the interstitial facet, viz. altruism, defined by the characteristics kind,
sympathetic and generous (Ashton et al., 2014). This facet-level trait, therefore, measures a
combination of high H, high A, and high E, which is of specific interest in this study. Further,
the scales of this instrument
10
are compatible with the largest set of personality dimensions that are consistently obtained
from the indigenous personality lexicons of a wide-range of human languages (Ashton &
Lee, 2008). The HEXACO-60 has demonstrated that it is internally reliable as detailed in the
studies above. Against this background, it is the aim of the current research to assess
personality from a nomothetic approach to measure traits that occur consistently across
groups.

5. Altruism, Empathy and Personality concepts together

Individuals differ fundamentally from one another in the way they express their
emotions, and equally, each person’s willingness and ability to help another in a given
situation varies from person to person (Batson et al., 2015; Schroeder, Penner, Dovidio &
Piliavin, 1995). The process of motivation preceding prosocial behaviour is a complex and
multifaceted phenomenon (Chowdhury, 2015; Gordon, 2014). Recently, an interest into the
roots of altruism has sparked debate (de Waal, 2008; Hay, 2008; Warneken & Tomasello,
2008). Graziano and Tobin (2002) surmise that acts of kindness are linked to Agreeableness
which materialise through tertiary and secondary socialisation, such as parental influences,
schooling, and peer-groups respectively. Warneken and Tomasello (2009) maintain that
altruistic proclivities materialise early in ontogeny (biological predisposition) involving
intrinsic motivations linked to genetic factors that influence individual differences.
Warneken and Tomasello (2008) recognised socialisation as a secondary source that builds
upon this predisposition, postulating that, ‘human cultures cultivate rather than implant
altruism in the human psyche’ (p.465). Accordingly, Piliavin (2009) suggested that the brain
is wired for empathy and other-oriented action proposing that hormones impact this
disposition. Contemporarily, Batson et al. (1981) proposed the empathy-altruism theory
stating that individual’s high in empathy are more inclined to act prosocially.
Whatever the developmental origins and moderation of prosocial motivation, a
person situation approach requires a concomitant, effective, and procedural analysis with
empirical support, linking differences in prosocial motives like empathy and Agreeableness
(Graziano, Habashi, Sheese & Tobin, 2007). Evidence suggests that there is a link between
individuals high in Agreeableness and altruistic traits (Cumberland-Li, Eisenberg & Reiser,
2004). The main objective of this study was to quantitatively analyse the relationship
between empathy and prosocial behaviour to determine the altruistic personality. It is
proposed that the investigation of altruism warrants a general framework of positive
psychology to examine
11
Prosocialness in a new conceptual light. As described by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi
(2000), the discipline of positive psychology exemplifies positive sentiments, positive
personality traits, and positive settings. Whilst recognising the conflicting perspectives
toward pseudo-altruistic and true altruistic acts, Hoffman (2000) declared that empathy and
concern for others are what makes social life possible. Since this subject covers such a wide
area, the present study will narrow the research focus with the central theme being empathic
concern, and specifically concentrate on empathy-induced altruism (Batson et al., 2015).
Therefore, for the purpose of this study altruism is considered to be genuine selflessness,
which benefits others with disregard for any extrinsic rewards (Warneken & Tomasello,
2008). Although, it is well recognised that altruistic motivation is determined by empathy, a
contemporary view of altruism includes both affective and cognitive processes (Eisenberg,
Fabes & Spinrad, 2006). Evidence suggests that altruism includes not only emotional
attributes but also cognitive facets, such as perspective-taking and causal attribution (Lay &
Hoppman, 2015). It is supposed that Hoffman’s (2008) theory supports the role of
perspective-taking with connotations that empathy may play an important role on emotion
regulation. Gordon (2014) postulates that, perhaps, one’s capacity to understand the
perspective of others, instead of managing one’s own emotions is more integral to a pertinent
empathic response. Gordon (2014) found that emotion regulation plays a huge role on the
relationship between empathy and altruistic behaviour. Consistent with this Lockwood,
Seara-Cardoso and Viding (2014) assessed the link between affective and cognitive empathy
and prosocial behaviour and found similar results to some extent. Research indicates that
people who show empathy toward others are more inclined to help others and, therefore,
develop a more positive type of moral judgement (Eisenberg & Morris, 2001). It was
identified that even children were able to recognise another’s pain or sadness, and
subsequently displayed empathetic responses toward others (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1997). In
agreement with Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory, Stalikos and Hamodraka (2004)
claim that empathy develops in stages during infancy and childhood, which manifests
according to one’s quality of interpersonal relations, leading to emotional judgements that
can affect one’s incentive to help. There is a growing body of research verifying a
significantly strong positive link between empathy and prosocial behaviour (Batson, 2011;
Carlo & Randall, 2002; Chowdhury, 2015; Feigin, Owens & Goodyear-Smith, 2014; Sze,
Gyurak, Goodkind, & Levenson, 2012), with only a limited number finding no relationship
(Cialdini et al., 1987; Maner et al., 2002; Underwood & Moore,
12
1982). Along these lines, it can be summarised that empathy is considered to promote moral
development, which subsequently encourages prosocial behaviour in children and adults
alike that can shape one’s personality (Hoffman, 2000; Leontopoulou, 2010).
In the research literature, there is a focus on the personality domain, Agreeableness
(Graziano et al., 2007). Evidence suggests that prosocial motivation and other-oriented
behaviours, for example, altruism, may have underlying social-cognitive processes that
transpire through the Agreeableness trait (Finch, Panter & Caskie, 1999; Tobin, Graziano,
Vanman & Tassinary, 2000). Moreover, Ashton et al. (2014) and Graziano et al. (2007)
postulate that a combination of high H, high A, and high E traits typify prosocial tendencies
associated with altruism, which is pertinent to the current research.
To conclude, a picture is emerging of the relationship between empathy and prosocial
behaviour. Much research across different cultures is finding a consistent link between these
two constructs. Moreover, trait personality theory recognises that, overall, prosocial
motivation is linked to H, E and A dimensions of personality through an additional measure
of the interstitial narrow facet-level trait, altruism, facilitated within the HEXACO-60. In
addition, there is general consensus that prosociality is a multifaceted trait. Knafo-Noam,
Uzefovsky, Israel, Davidov and Zahn-Waxler (2015), in their longitudinal study among
twins, found that a single factor of prosociality accounts for an abundant proportion of the
variance across all prosociality facets which explains this phenotype. Therefore, it was
proposed from an empirical perspective that the above personality dimensions would be
central towards a better theoretical interpretation of the altruistic personality (Ashton, et al.,
2014; Caprara, Alessandri, Giunta, Panerai & Eisenberg, 2009).

5.1 Purpose of the Research

While a considerable amount of research exists on altruism; to date, to the best of the
author’s knowledge, there is no quantifiable recent research exploring the relationship
between empathy and prosocial behaviour which determines an altruistic personality in the
UK. Studies of empathy have predominantly been conducted on children and relatively few
studies have examined the link between empathy and prosocialness in conjunction with
altruistic personality traits (Sze et al., 2012). Based on the above literature and preceding
rationale, the present study seeks to address this gap in the literature among a population from
H. E. settings in the UK. Therefore, the main objective of the present study is to consider the
empathy-
13
altruism theory (Batson, 2011) in order to test the claim that empathy leads to prosocialness,
incorporating personality theory that individual traits are related to the altruistic personality.
The aims of the present study were, first, to explore the effects of (if any) demographic
factors, for example, gender, age, marital status, and parenthood, on altruism. Second, to
investigate the relationship between empathy and prosocial behaviour. Third, to highlight the
existence of personality traits towards altruistic behaviour. Previous research linking
empathy and prosocialness demonstrates a significantly positive relationship between
empathy and prosocial behaviour which implies a predisposition towards an altruistic
personality. It was, therefore, hypothesised that the results would demonstrate a significant
positive correlation between empathy and prosocial behaviour, with the expectation that these
findings would enable one to categorise the altruistic personality.

6. Method
6.1 Design
This study employed a correlational online survey design to investigate the
relationship between empathic concern (Independent Variable; IV) and prosocial behaviour
(Dependent Variable; DV) via TEQ and PSA respectively. A third variable to determine the
altruistic personality via HEXACO-60 was also analysed.
6.2 Participants
A random and convenience sample of students from diverse backgrounds, including
overseas, attending University in the UK were invited to take part in this study. A total of 46
responses were received of which 43 were fully completed and included in the final analysis.
Of this sample, 14% (N=6) were male and 86% (N=37) were female. Participants’ age
ranged from 18 to 56+ with the breakdown as: 44.2% in the 18-25 category, 30.2% in the 26-
35 category, 9.3% in 36-45 category, 11.6% in 46-55 category, and 4.7% in the 56+ category.
In terms of year of study, 27.9% (n=12) stated that they were in Year 1; 20.9% (n=9) in Year
2, and 51.2% (n=22) in Year 3. Out of all the participants 76.7% were not married and 51.2%
reported that they were parents.

6.3 Materials/Measures
In order to collect data electronically, an online, quantitative survey generated via
Qualtrics (2016) was utilised in this study. This method was deemed suitable for the current
14
research because it is particularly expedient when measuring the degree and scope of
attitudes
(Hewstone, Stroebe & Jonas, 2012). Moreover, a relatively large dataset (>30) is considered
to be potentially representative of the population, and, therefore, generalisable (Denscombe,
2014). The materials comprised an information sheet (Appendix C), and a consent form
(Appendix D). The self-report measures used in this study are validated and reliable tools
considered appropriate for dispositional and trait-based constructs. In addition to
demographic data requested, viz. sex, age, year of study, marital status and whether the
participant is a parent, the following measures were included:

6.3.1 Prosocial Behaviour

The Prosocialness Scale for Adults’ (PSA; Caprara, Steca, Zelli & Capanna, 2005)
was employed to operationalise prosocial behaviour. This 16-item measure requires
participants to indicate whether each statement vis-à-vis prosocial behaviour is true of
themselves. For example, ‘I am pleased to help my friends/colleagues in their activities’
[item 1]. Each item is assessed on a 5-point Likert scale: 1=never/almost never true;
2=occasionally true; 3=sometimes true; 4=often true and 5=almost always/always true.
Higher scores in this scale are indicative of a more helpful and caring disposition.
6.3.2 Empathy
The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ; Spreng, McKinnon, Mar & Levine, 2009)
was employed to operationalise empathy. This questionnaire is verified as a brief, reliable,
and valid instrument with high internal consistency. This 16-item measure comprises 8
positively worded items and 8 negatively worded items. Participants are required to rate
themselves on how much they are able to empathise with people. For example, ‘I enjoy
making other people feel better’ [item 5 – positively worded], ‘I am not really interested in
how other people feel’ [item 12 – negatively worded]. Each item is assessed on a 5-point
Likert scale: 0=never; 1=rarely; 2=sometimes; 3=often; and 4=always. Subsequently, higher
scores in this scale are indicative of a more empathetic disposition.

6.3.3 Personality
The self-report HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised scale (HEXACO-PI-R;
Ashton & Lee, 2009) was employed to operationalise personality in terms of six major
dimensions. These factors are Honesty-Humility, Emotionality,
eXtraversion, Agreeableness,
15
Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience. This 60-item measure assesses six broad
HEXACO personality factors, each of which contains four facets (narrower personality
characteristics). An additional 25th narrow facet, called altruism is included, representing a
blend of the Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, and Agreeableness factors. Thus, verified to be
a more precise measure of altruism. Participants are required to rate how much they agree or
disagree with each statement. For example, ‘I would enjoy creating a work of art, such as a
novel, a song, or a painting’ [item 13]. Each item is assessed on a 5-point Likert scale:
1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=neutral (neither agree nor disagree; 4=agree; and
5=strongly agree. Higher scores in this scale indicate a higher level of each personality
dimension.
All three scales are readily available in the public domain (Ashton & Lee, 2004;
Caprara et al. 2005; Spreng et al. 2009), and have made valuable contributions in providing a
better understanding in this research area. Moreover, these three instruments specifically
assess subjective attitudes concerning altruism (prosocial behaviour), empathy and
personality traits, although, the researcher did take into account that all scales are limited in
what they can do from a psychological perspective. A copy of the questionnaire can be found
in (Appendix E).

6.4 Procedure
In compliance with the British Psychological Society (BPS) Code of Ethics and
following ethical approval from the Department of Psychology Ethics Committee
(Appendix A), an online survey platform was created using Qualtrics (2016) software. A
global email was sent out to pertinent participants by a member of the psychology team at
xxxx University, inviting them to take part in the survey (Appendix B). The email included a
URL link and participants were notified that further guidance would be provided on clicking
the link. On access to the study site, participants were notified that completion of the survey
was entirely optional and that data would be recorded anonymously. At first, participants
were directed to an introduction page that described the purpose of the study, comprising a
full and detailed information sheet (Appendix C). Before they could continue to the next
stage, participants were instructed to consent to the study electronically by clicking on the
three compulsory requirements (Appendix D), viz. confirmation that they had read and
understood the information sheet; verification that participation was voluntary and that they
were free to withdraw from the study at any time without giving reason; and assurance that
data collected would be looked at by the researcher and supervisor of the project only. If all
three mandatory
16
statements had not been agreed upon, participants were re-directed to the end of the survey
and thanked for their time. Participants’ that agreed to all three mandatory statements were
directed to the next stage and were asked to make note of their personal identification code
for the purpose of anonymity, before they continued with the survey. At the beginning of the
survey participants were informed that they must click the submit button at the end of each
page or their data would not be anonymously recorded. Initially, participants were required
to complete brief demographic details as mentioned above. Subsequently, participants
completed the questionnaire tapping empathy, prosocialness and personality. Whilst scoring
the online survey, participants had the flexibility to go back to previous pages if they wished
to change their answers. There was no time limit for completion of the study, however, it
would have taken no longer than 10-15 minutes to complete. At the end of the survey,
participants were thanked for their time in completing the survey and informed that their
responses had been successfully recorded.
6.5 Ethical Considerations
The British Psychological (BPS) Code of Ethics and the university’s ethical
committee guidelines and standards were followed (Appendix A). Informed consent was
obtained from the participants, and they were notified of their right to withdraw from the
study without prejudice. Participants were assured of anonymity and confidentiality, and
debriefed following completion of the questionnaire. They were advised that data would only
be kept for the purpose of the study and destroyed thereafter. No incentive was given for
participation.

6.6 Data Analysis

All data were exported from Qualtrics to SPSS 24 Statistics Data Editor. In order to
establish the internal reliability of the scales, syntax was applied wherein 29 statements were
reverse-keyed for the HEXACO-PI-R scale, and 8 statements were reverse-keyed for the
TEQ scale. The PSA scale did not require re-coding as the valence for agreement with the
statements contributed to the measure of prosocialness. Responses were subsequently
converted into numerical data between 1 and 5, with 1 representing lower scores and 5
representing higher scores. Data were subject to analysis using frequencies, reliability and
Pearson correlation routines.

17
7. Results
Table 7.1 below presents the Cronbach alphas, means, and standard deviations for
Empathy, Prosocial Behaviour and the HEXACO-60 loaded onto six factors. The alpha
coefficients for the present study are as follows: Empathy α =.86; Prosocial Behaviour α
=.85; Honesty/Humility α =.78; Emotionality α =.77; eXtraversion α =.85; Agreeableness α
=.82; Conscientiousness α =.74; Openness to experience α =.59. Among the present sample
the data demonstrate that seven scales record very good reliability scores, according to
DeVellis (2003) of .65. The only exception is the Openness to experience subscale,
achieving a slightly lower internal consistency reliability score than the threshold set by
DeVellis (2003). However, this was deemed acceptable and data analysis proceeded as
normal. On the whole, these alphas confirm the findings of previous studies within H. E.
settings, indicating that these scales perform well in this context. With regard to mean scale
scores, Empathy carried the highest mean (M=63.16, SD=8.12), followed by Prosocial
Behaviour (M=58.97, SD=8.09), Openness to experience (M=35.18, SD=4.94),
Honesty/Humility (M=35.05, SD=6.51), Conscientiousness (M=34.10, SD=6.16),
Emotionality (M=33.69, SD=6.37), Agreeableness (M=31.54, SD=6.92), and eXtraversion
(M=30.18, SD=7.58).

Table 7.1
Scale properties and descriptive statistics for TEQ, PSA, and HEXACO-PI-R
Scale Alpha Mean SD Min Max
Empathy .86 63.16 8.12 46 77
Prosocial Behaviour .85 58.97 8.09 43 80
Honesty/Humility .78 35.05 6.51 22 47
Emotionality .77 33.69 6.37 20 45
eXtraversion .85 30.18 7.58 15 48
Agreeableness .82 31.54 6.92 18 45
Conscientiousness .74 34.10 6.16 23 45
Openness .59 35.18 4.94 20 44
Note: Empathy: TEQ; Prosocial Behaviour: PSA; Honesty/Humility, Emotionality,
eXtraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness: HEXACO-PI-R.

Table 7.2 below presents the Pearson Product Moment Correlation coefficients
between all the variables. In terms of the main aim of the present study three key findings are
noteworthy from these data.
18
First, the data demonstrate that empathy and prosocial behaviour is strongly correlated
(r(41)=.70, p<.001), showing a statistically significant positive relationship between these
two
variables. This indicates that empathy has maximum impact on prosocial behaviour. Thus as
levels of measured empathy increase so do levels of prosocial behaviour, encapsulating the
strong link between empathy and prosocial behaviour.
Second, the data demonstrate that personality impacts empathy due to statistically
significant positive correlations present between Empathy and Honesty-Humility (r(41)=.46,
p<.01), Empathy and Emotionality (r(41)=.34, p<.05), and Empathy and Openness to
experience (r(41)=.35, p<.05). Although, the other three variables incorporated within
HEXACO-60, viz. eXtraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are in the positive
direction, they do not present significant correlations.
 Third, despite the fact that Pearson correlations range from .09 to .26 between
prosocial behaviour and HEXACO-60 dimensions, and the analyses are in a positive
direction, the data demonstrate that personality does not impact prosocial behaviour.
Correlations between these variables were negated due to the non-significant relationships
found, for example, Prosocial Behaviour and Openness to experience (r(41)=.24, ns), and
Prosocial Behaviour and Conscientiousness (r(41)=.25, ns). A moderately significant
positive relationship is present between Honesty and Agreeableness (r(41)=.49, p<.01).
Essentially, according to these analyses it could be summarised that a higher level of empathy
is key towards realising the altruistic personality and that personality does not impact
prosocial behaviour.

Table 7.2
Correlation Matrix for Empathy, Prosocial Behaviour and HEXACO-PI-R Subscales
Empathy Open Consc Agree eXtr Emot Hon
Prosocial +.70 +.24 +.25 +.09 +.21 +.26 +.20
.001 NS NS NS NS NS NS
Honesty +.46 +.28 +.15 +.49 -.01 -.05
.01 NS NS .01 NS NS
Emotionality +.34 -.27 +.41 -.31 +.27
.05 NS .01 NS NS
eXtraversion +.19 +.33 +.28 -.19
NS .05 NS NS
Agreeableness +.18 +.44 -.08
NS .01 NS
Conscientiousness +.19 -.17
NS NS
Openness +.35
.05
19
8. Discussion and Conclusion
The present study was designed to analyse the relationship between empathy and
prosocial behaviour to assess whether the altruistic personality could be verified, whilst
testing the empathy-altruism theory (Batson et al., 1981). Based on previous literature
reviewed, it was hypothesised that a significant positive correlation between empathy and
prosocial behaviour would be found. Drawing on data collected from 43 respondents through
an online survey, measured by TEQ, PSA and HEXACO-PI-R, this quantitative study has
been concerned with scrutinising the link between the three constructs altruism, empathy and
personality. It is evident that empathic concern and altruistic acts share important attributes.
Both are caring and discretionary behaviours which reinforce the empathy-altruism theory by
being interconnected to the altruistic personality. It was noted that rather than transient
responses to specific situations, the two concepts – empathy and prosocial behaviour –
generally occur consistently and concurrently found to be part of one’s personality during the
course of the relevant individual’s lifespan (Ashton et al., 2014; Caprara et al., 2009;
Hoffman, 2000; Leontopoulou, 2010). Three salient inferences emerge from these data.

8.1 First Inference

The first inference concerns the extent to which empathy influences prosocial
behaviour. The current data demonstrate a strong significantly positive correlation between
empathy and prosocial behaviour thus upholding the hypothesis for this study. With regard
to the empathy-altruism theory, Batson et al. (1981), essentially claimed that psychological
altruism does exist and materialises through the empathetic drive to help another who may be
distressed. A similar trend has emerged from this sample population affiliated to universities
in the UK. The significant positive relationship found between empathy and prosocialness in
this study clearly indicates a reasonable fit of the empathy-altruism model. These findings,
therefore, provide a snapshot to confirm the empathy-altruism theory (Batson et al., 1981)
emphasising that empathy is directly related to prosocial behaviour. This lends further
support to the theories of Carlo and Randall (2002); Eisenberg et al. (2010); Hoffman (2008),
indicating the importance of empathy for engaging in prosocial acts. In terms of measuring
empathy in this study, TEQ primarily conceptualises empathy as an affective process aptly.
The ability to recognise and indirectly experience the feelings of others vicariously thus
instigates prosocial behaviour. Conceptually the finding suggests that an increased level of
empathy is integral when predicting relationships between empathy and prosocial behaviour
to ascertain the
20
altruistic personality. Consonant with Decety and Jackson (2004), this conclusion highlights
the importance of managing and reinforcing introspective relations between self and others.
This appears to be a key aspect of empathy which ultimately facilitates prosocialness.
Consequently, the decisive conclusion derived from this inference is that empathy-induced
altruism can be genuinely selfless which compels people to reduce their own unpleasant
emotions to help others in distress. This personality trait is apparent even in situations where
exposure to certain circumstances could be avoided easily (Batson, 1981). This finding is in
juxtaposition vis-à-vis to individuals who lack empathic concern who display avoidant
behaviour toward helping others in distress (Destano, 2015). Accordingly, it could be stated
that empathy is regarded as the principal facilitator in respect of the desire to act prosocially.
The implication for this pertinent finding is that high empathetic individuals will
convey the tendency to help others with the intention to simply benefit the recipient.
Although, there are nuances of difference in this study in comparison to the literature
reviewed, the strong link between empathy and prosocial behaviour is clearly evident. High
levels of compassion and concern for people in need, facilitates more prosocial moral
reasoning which leads to the desire to improve the condition of those in distress. It is
postulated that empathic abilities lead to profound moral principles subsequently manifesting
through humane acts. There is a possibility that, in line with the empathy-altruism approach
(Kohlberg, 1976; Oliner & Oliner, 1988; Staub, 1974) the monumental effects of internalised
prosocial values empower individuals to be positively predisposed toward engagement in
altruistic acts, which ultimately substantiates the altruistic personality. Along these lines, and
consistent with Carlo et al. (1996) it could be summarised that caring about the welfare of
others through moral concern encourages prosocial behaviour which subsequently shapes the
altruistic personality (Hoffman, 2000; Leontopoulou, 2010). The propensity of empathetic
individuals among this sample showed that as levels of measured empathy increased so did
levels of prosocial behaviour which indicates the strong link between empathy and prosocial
behaviour.

8.2 Second Inference

The second inference concerns the focus on altruistic personality traits, which
succinctly put, describes a person’s average proclivity toward prosocial acts. There is
consensus in the literature reviewed that the altruistic personality is ubiquitous among people
where high levels of empathy are linked to prosocial behaviour (Farside, 2007; Feigin et al.,
2014; Sherman et al., 2015). In terms of personality impacting empathy, the current findings
21
demonstrated that, in general, there is a strong link between empathy and prosocial behaviour
which shapes one’s character (Hoffman, 2000; Leontopolou, 2010). Specifically, the present
study found significant positive correlations between empathy and H, E, and O. The
interstitial facet called altruism in the HEXACO-60 represents a blend of H, E, and A
(Ashton & Lee, 2009) which are known determinants mediating the altruistic personality,
with some of the characteristics including kindness, sympathy and generosity (Ashton et al.,
2014).
 In line with Zettler et al. (2013), the current study thus validates a measure of
prosocial behaviour. The H, E, and A traits broadly and separately epitomise personality
characteristics associated with altruism (Gaziano et al., 2007). In the current study, it was
found that two of these three facets contribute towards an overall disposition within
individuals to engage in prosocial acts. The significant positive relationships identified
between empathy and H, E, and O in the current study thus contribute to the literature
reviewed (Ashton et al., 2014). The interpretation of these findings indicate that individuals
with altruistic personality traits are first – sincere, operate with fairness, eschew greed and
are modest; secondly – fearful, anxious, dependent and sentimental; and thirdly – possess
aesthetic appreciation, inquisitive, creative and unconventional, respectively. Although,
there was not a statistically significant relationship found between empathy and A in the
present study, it was however, still, in a positive direction. According to trait theories,
individual dispositions tend to occur consistently and are relatively stable over time
(Sherman et al. 2015). An explanation for the current findings that the propensity to be
empathetic leads to prosocial behaviour, subsequently results in altruistic traits. These data
are also consistent with Ashton et al. (2014); Caprara et al. (2009); and Graziano et al.
(2007) whereby similar trends emerged whilst examining the antecedents to prosocial
behaviour. As a result, altruism appears to be intertwined with prosocial behaviours
triggered by empathic concern. Overall, the analysis demonstrated that, in general, findings
tentatively determine the altruistic personality trait.

8.3 Third Inference

The third conclusion concerns the non-significant correlations recorded pertaining to
personality and prosocial behaviour. Although all six dimensions of HEXACO-60 were in
the positive direction and correlated with prosocial behaviour, the findings were negated due
to the insignificant levels achieved. This is contrary to previous findings (Cumberland et al.,
2004; Graziano & Tobin, 2002), postulating a link between individuals high in Agreeableness
and
22
altruistic traits. There was, however, a moderately positive significant relationship recorded
between the constructs Hand A which are both key players in facilitating the altruistic
personality. As predicted, what constitutes the altruistic personality is thus interdependent on
the strong link between empathy and prosocial behaviour. Overall, the analysis demonstrated
that, in general, personality was not a predictor of prosocial behaviour which implies that it
does not impact prosocial behaviour. Instead, as expected, personality impacts empathy. As
a result predominant findings from this study allowed for drawing a typology of what
constitutes the altruistic personality. The empirical evidence for the present study is,
therefore, consistent with (Knafo-Noam et al., 2015) who validate the theoretical
conceptualisation of the altruistic personality asserting that both genetic and environmental
factors are at play regarding one’s prosocial activity.

8.4 Conclusions, Limitations and Directions for Further Research

In summary, the present study specifically set out to assess the relationship between
empathy and prosocial behaviour alongside assessing the altruistic personality. A
significantly strong positive correlation between empathy and prosocial behaviour was found,
in conjunction with moderately positive correlations between empathy and H, E, and O
dimensions of HEXACO-60. The above findings succinctly elucidate the theoretical and
conceptual aspect of true-altruism. Empirical evidence obtained corroborates the viability of
prosocial acts preceded by empathy. These findings, therefore, uphold the hypothesis for the
current research alongside confirming the empathy-altruism theory (Batson et al., 1981). On
the basis of these results, it could be concluded that empathy is an attribute linked to
prosocialness which brings about various positive psychological effects including the
realisation of the altruistic personality. It is thus postulated that people who behave
prosocially would have personality profiles that show high levels of empathy. It can be
tentatively concluded that the conceptualisation of what constitutes the altruistic personality
is thus the interdependence of empathy and prosocial behaviour.
However, it is important to highlight that the study’s correlational design restricts
conclusions about causal relationships. The researcher found an association rather than a
cause and effect. As a consequence, no firm causal inferences should be drawn from this
correlational study. Although the results demonstrate a significant positive relationship
between higher levels of empathy being associated with increased levels of prosocialness, it
does not demonstrate necessarily that one causes the other, neither does it indicate why this
might be.
23
A Regression Model would have been appropriate if there were a higher number of
respondents. Further research is now needed to expand data obtained to explore how
percentage of variance can be explained with regards to empathy once personality is taken
into account. Another limitation is the use of self-report measures which could have resulted
in pro-altruistic response bias due to the potential for socially desirable responses. Despite
the above limitations, the encouraging results from this quantitative study, in terms of the
variables empathy and prosocial behaviour in relation to altruism, lend themselves to further
replication and extension with the use of more sophisticated data collection and analysis
tools.

(Word Count: 9,048 approx.)

24

References

Aghababaei, N., Mohammadtabar, S., & Saffarinia, M. (2014). Dirty dozen versus the H
factor: Comparison of the dark triad and Honesty–Humility in prosociality, religiosity
 and happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 6-10. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.026
Allport, G.W. (1960). The open system in personality theory. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 61, 301-310.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality.
European Journal of Personality, 15, 327-353.
Ashton, M.C., & Lee, K. (2004). The HEXACO Personality Inventory: A new measure of
the major dimensions of personality. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 39. 258-
329. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The prediction of Honesty-Humility-related criteria by the
HEXACO and Five-Factor models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality,
42, 1216-1228.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major
dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340-345. doi:
10.1080/00223890902935878
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & de Vries (2014). The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness,
and Emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 18(2), 139-152. doi: 10.1177/1088868314523838
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bar-Tal, D., Sharabany, R., & Raviv, A. (1982). Cognitive basis for the development of
altruistic behavior. In V.J. Derlega, & J. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping
behavior: theories and research (pp. 377-396). New York: Academic Press.
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of
adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex
differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163-175.
Barbarovic, T., & Sverko, I. (2013). The HEXACO personality domains in Croation sample.
Institute of Social Sciences, 22(3), 397-411. doi: 10.5559/di.22.3.01
Bashiri, H., Barahmand, U., Akabri, Z. S., Ghamari, G. H., & Vusugi, A. (2011). A study of
the psychometric properties and the standardisation of HEXACO Personality
25
Inventory. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 30, 1173-1176. doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.228
Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Batson, C.D., Ahmad, N., & Lishner, D.A. (2002). Empathy and altruism. In: Oxford
handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed). New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic
emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 40(2), 290-302.
Batson, C. D., Lishner, D. A., & Stocks, E. L. (2015). The empathy-altruism hypothesis. In
D. Schroeder, & W. Graziano, The oxford handbook of prosocial behaviour, (pp.
259-281). New York: Oxford University Press.
Batson, C.D., Batson, J.G., Slingsby, J.K., Harrell, K.L., Peekna, H.M., & Todd, RM. (1991).
Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61, 413-26.
Batson. C.D. (2008). Moral masquerades: Experimental exploration of the nature of moral
motivation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences (Special Issue on “Moral
Phenomenology” ed. By Uriah Kriegel), 7, 51-66.
Batson, C.D. (2010). Empathy-induced altruistic motivation. In (Eds.), Prosocial motives,
emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 15-34). Washington DC:
American Psychological Association.
Berkowitz, L. (1972). Social norms, feelings and other factors affecting helping behavior and
altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 63-
108) (6th ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Bierhoff, H.W. (2002). Prosocial behaviour. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Blair, R. J. R. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others: Dissociating forms of empathy
through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and
Cognition, 14(4), 698–718. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2005.06.004
Buss, D.M., & Craik, K.H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological
Review, 90, 105-126.
Caprara, G.V., Steca, P., Zelli, A., & Capanna, C. (2005). A new scale for measuring adults’
prosocialness. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 21(2), 77-89.
doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.77
Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2007). Prosocial agency: The contribution of values and self-
26
efficacy beliefs to prosocial behaviour across ages. Journal of Social & Clinical
Psychology, 26(2), 218-239. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2007.26.2.218
Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., Giunta, L. D., Panerai, L., & Eisenberg, N. (2009). The
 contribution of agreeableness and self-efficacy beliefs to prosociality. European
Journal of Personality, 24(1), 36-55. doi: 10.1002/per.739
Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for
late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 31-44.
doi:10.1023/A:1014033032440
Carlo, G., Koller, S. H., Eisenberg, N., DaSilva, M. S. & Frohlich, C. B. (1996). A cross-
national study on the relations among prosocial moral reasoning, gender role
orientation, and prosocial behaviours. Developmental Psychology, 32, 231–240.
Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003). Sociocognitive and
behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 23(1), 107–134. doi: 10.1177/0272431602239132
Celik, K., Saritas, E., & Catalbas, G. (2013). The Effect of Student Teachers’ Liking of
Children and Empathic Tendency on the Attitudes of Teaching Profession.
International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 3(2), 499-510.
Chowdhury, N. T. (2015). A quantitative study: To examine whether religiosity, empathy,
gender and age play a role in prosocial behaviour in students. (Unpublished
Batchelor’s thesis). Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom.
Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., & Beaman, A. L. (1987).
Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 749-758.
Comte, A. (1875). System of positive polity. London: Longmans, Green.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R)
and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Cumberland-Li., A, Eisenberg, N., & Reiser, M. (2004). Relations of young children’s
agreeableness and resiliency to effortful control and impulsivity. Social Development.
13, 191-212.
Dambrun, M., & Ricard, M. (2011). Self-centredness and selflessness: A theory of self-based
psychological functioning and its consequences for happiness. Review of General
Psychology, 15, 138-157.
27
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. CO: Westview Press.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy.
Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71-100.
doi: 10.1177/1534582304267187
Denscombe, M. (2014). The good research guide for small scale social research projects.
(5th ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.
DeSteno, D. (2015). Compassion and altruism: How our minds determine who is worthy of
help. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 80-83. doi:
10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.02.002
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. London: Sage.
de Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy.
Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 279–300.
Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. A., (2006). The Social
Psychology of prosocial behaviour. London: Erlbaum.
Eisenberg, N., Miller, P. A., Schaller, M., Fabes, R. A., Fultz, J., Shell, R., & Shea, C. L.
(1989). The role of sympathy and altruistic personality traits in helping: A re-
examination. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 41-67.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 51, 665–697.
Eisenberg, N., Eggum, N. D., & Giunta, L.D. (2010). Empathy-related responding:
Associations with prosocial behavior, aggression, and intergroup relations. Social
Issues Policy Review, 4(1), 143–180. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01020.x
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., & Spinrad, T. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg & W.
Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., pp. 646– 718). New York:
Wiley.
Eisenberg, N., & Morris, A. S. (2001). The origins and social significance of empathy-related
responding, Social Justice, 14, 95-120.
Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. H. (1997). The roots of prosocial behavior in children.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. J. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Farside, T. L. (2007). The psychology of altruism. The Psychologist, 20. 474-477.
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785-791.
28
doi: 10.1038/nature02043
Feigin, S., Owens, G., & Goodyear-Smith, F. (2014). Theories of human altruism: a
systematic review. Annals of Neuroscience and Psychology, 1(1). 1-9.
Finch, J. F., Panter, A. T., & Caskie, G. I. L. (1999). Two approaches for identifying shared
personality dimensions across methods. Journal of Personality, 67, 407–438.
Gates, B. (2010). The giving pledge 2010. Retrieved from http://www.givingpledge.org
Gordon, H. (2014). Investigating the relation between empathy and prosocial behavior: An
emotion regulation framework. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University. Blacksberg, VA.
Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2002). Agreeableness: Dimension of personality or social
desirability artifact? Journal of Personality, 70, 695-727.
Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness,
empathy, and helping: A Person-situation perspective. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 93(4), 583-599. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.583
Håkansson, J., & Montgomery, H. (2003). Empathy as an interpersonal phenomenon.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 267-284.
Hay, D. F. (2009). Commentary. The roots and branches of human altruism. British Journal
of Psychology, 100, 473-479.
Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W., & Jonas, K. (2012). An introduction to social psychology.
(5th ed.). Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and
justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman, M. L. (2008). Empathy & prosocial behavior. In M. Lewis, J. Haviland-Jones, & L.
Feldman Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., Vol. 24, p. 298). The Guilford
Press.
Hoffman, M.L. (1981). The development of empathy. In J.P. Rushton, R.M. Sorrentino
(Eds.), Altruism and helping behaviour: Delusion. New York: Plenum.
Hoffman, G.E. (2013). Correcting for population structure and kinship using the linear mixed
model: Theory and extensions. PLoS One, 8(12). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075707
Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 33, 307–316.
Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2011). Social Psychology. (6th ed.). Essex: Pearson
Education Limited.
29
Homans, G.C. (2016). George C. Homans history, theory, and method (Ed. By A J Travino).
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Hume, D. (1777) Enquiries concerning the human understanding and concerning the
principles of morals. Retrieved from http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hume-enquiries-
concerning-the-human-understanding-and-concerning-the-principles-of-morals
Ickes, W. J. (2003). Everyday mind reading: Understanding what other people think and feel.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Johnson, J. A., Cheek, J. M., & Smither, R. (1983). The structure of empathy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1299–1312.
Karylowski, J. (1982). Two types of altruistic behaviour: Doing good to feel good or to make
the other feel good. In V. J. Derlega, J. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping
behavior: theories and research (pp. 397-413) New York: Academic Press.
Knafo-Noam, A., Uzefovsky, F., Israel1, S., Davidov, M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2015). The
prosocial personality and its facets: genetic and environmental architecture of mother-
reported behavior of 7-year-old twins. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(12).
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00112
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive developmental approach.
In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research and social
issues (pp. 31-53). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Krupp, D. B. (2013). How to distinguish altruism from spite (and why we should bother).
Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26, 2746-2749. doi:10.1111/jeb.12253
Lay, J. C., & Hoppmann, C. A. (2015). Altruism and Prosocial Behavior. Encyclopedia of
Geropsychology, 1(2), 1-10. doi: 10.1007/978-981-287-080_69-1
Lelorain, S., Sultan, S., Zenasni, F., Catu-Pinault., A. Jaury, P., Boujut, E., & Rigal., L.
(2013). Empathic concern and professional characteristics associated with clinical
empathy in French general practitioners. European Journal of General Practice, 19,
23-28. doi: 10.3109/13814788.2012.709842
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2008). The HEXACO personality factors in the indigenous
personality lexicons of English and 11 other languages. Journal of Personality, 76,
1001-1054. doi: 10.111/j.1467-6494.2008.00512x
Leontopoulou, S. (2010). An exploratory study of altruism in Greek children: Relations with
empathy, resilience and classroom climate. Scientific Research, 1(5), 377-385.
doi:10.4236/psych.2010.15047
30
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes.  Archives
of Psychology, 140(1), 44‐53.
Lockwood, P. L., Seara-Cardoso, A., & Viding, E. (2014). Emotion regulation moderates the
association between empathy and prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE, 9(5), 1-6.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096555
Maner, J. K., Luce, C. L., Neuberg, S. L., Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S., & Sagarin, B. J. (2002).
The effects of perspective taking on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for
altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1601-1610. doi:
10.1177/014616702237586
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215.
Mehrabian, A., Young, A. L., & Sato, S. (1988). Emotional empathy and associated
individual differences. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 7, 221–240.
Naybar, N. (2008). Gender differences in empathy: The role of the right hemisphere. Brain
and Cognition, 67, 162-167.
Nickell, G. (1998). The Helping Attitudes Scale. Paper presented at 106th Annual Convention
of the American Psychological Association at San Francisco, August, 1998.
Oliner, S.P., & Oliner, P.M. (1988). The altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi
Europe. New York: Free Press.
Paul, E.F., Miller, F.D., & Paul, J. (1993). Altruism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of
behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 524-539. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524
Piliavin, J. A. (2009). Altruism and helping: the evolution of a field. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 72, 209-225.
Piliavin, J.A., & Charng, H. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research.
Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 27-65.
Poropat, A. E. (2011). The Eysenckian personality factors and their correlations with
academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 2011, 41-
58. doi: 10.1348/000709910X497671
Qualtrics. (2016). Qualtrics Survey Software. Retrieved from: https://www.qualtrics.com
Reniers, R. L. E. P., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Völlm, B. A. (2011). The
QCAE: a questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. Journal of Personality
31
 Assessment, 93(1), 84–95. doi:10.1080/00223891.2010.528484
Romer, D., Gruder, C. L., & Lizzadro, T. (1986). A person-situation approach to altruistic
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 101-1012.
Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the
self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 292-302.
Sachet, A. B. S. (2013). Children’s and adults’ prosocial behaviour in real and imaginary
social interactions. Department of Psychology and the Graduate School of the
University of Oregan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., & Piliavin, J. A. (1995). The psychology of
helping and altruism: Problems and puzzles. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments. Los Angeles, CA: Enhanced Media
Publishing.
Sorrentino, R.M., & Rushton, J. (1981). Current perspectives and future possibilities. In
J. Rushton & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social,
personality, and developmental perspectives (pp. 425-439). Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spreng, R. N., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto empathy
questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to
multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(1), 62-71.
doi: 10.1080/00223890802484381
SPSS Inc. (1988). SPSSX Users Guide. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Stalikas, A., & Hamodraka, M. (2004). I ensynaisthisi stin psychotherapeia. Athina: Ellinika
Grammata.
Staub, E. (1974). Helping a distressed person: Social, personality, and stimulus determinants,
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 293-
341). New York: Academic Press.
Stefanović, M. J., Dunjić-Kostić, B., Gligorić, M., Lačković, M., Damjanović, A., &
Ivković, M. (2015). Empathy predicting career choice in future physicians. Engrami,
37(1), 37-48.

32
Stoller, P. (2016). Edith Turner and the anthropology of collective joy. Paranthropology:
Journal of anthropological approaches to the paranormal, 7(1). 40-41.
Strakatý, S. (2016). Relationship between traumatic experience and prosocial behaviour.
State University of New York, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Bachelor of Arts in Psychology.
Sze, J. A., Gyurak, A., Goodkind, M. S., & Levenson, R. W. (2012). Greater emotional
empathy and prosocial behavior in late life. Emotion, 12(5), 1129-1140.
doi: 10.1037/a0025011
Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E. J., & Tassinary, L. G. (2000). Personality,
emotional experience, and efforts to control emotions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 79, 656-669.
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46,
35-37.
Turner, E. (2012). Communitas: The anthropology of collective joy. USA: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1982). Perspective-taking and altruism. Psychological
Bulletin, 91, 143-173.
Wakabayashi, A. (2014). A sixth personality domain that is independent of the Big Five
domains: The psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory in a
Japanese sample. Japanese Psychological Research, 56(3), 211-223. doi:
10.1111/jpr.12045
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young
chimpanzees. Science, 311(5765), 1301-1303.
Warneken, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Extrinsic rewards undermine altruistic tendencies in
20-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 44(6), 1785-1788.
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2009). The roots of human altruism. British Journal of
Psychology, 100, 455-471. doi: 10.1348/000712608X379061
Yoeli, E., Hoffman, M., Rand, D.G., & Nowak, M.A. (2013). Powering up with indirect
reciprocity in a large-scale field experiment. PNAS, 110(2), 10424-10429.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1301210110
Zahne-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., & Chapman, M. (1992). Development of
concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 126-136.

33
Zettler, I., Hilbig, B. E., & Heydasch, T. (2013). Two sides of one coin: Honesty-Humility
and social factors mutually shape social dilemma decision making. Journal of
Research in Personality, 47, 286-295

34
 Appendix A
Email Correspondence
Re. Psychology ethics

From: [email protected]
Dated: Wed 2/11/2016, 14:02
Recipients: Xxxx ([email protected]); Xxxx ([email protected]);
Jo Turley ([email protected])

Dear Harj
Many thanks for this, and I am happy to grant you ethical approval.
Best wishes
Emyr

------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1.52 PM +0000, “Xxxx”

<[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Dr Williams

I write to acknowledge receipt of your email.  I am pleased that my project has been approved subject to the
directions given.  I would like to notify you that the request for inclusion of my supervisor's name on all
participant forms has been implemented.

Kind regards
Xxxx

------------------------------------------------------------------

35
From: Emyr Williams <[email protected]>
Sent: 01 November 2016 15:59
To: HARJINDER KAUR MACKENZIE
Cc: Jo Turley; Xxxx
Subject: Psychology ethics
 
Dear Harjinder
 
A Quantitative Analysis of the Relationship between Empathy and Prosocial Behaviour to determine the Altruistic
Personality
 
Thank you for your application to the Department of Psychology Undergraduate ethics committee. I am pleased to inform
you that your project has been approved subject to the following:
 
1.      Inclusion of supervisors name and contact details on all participant forms (i.e., consent form, invitation).

 Please confirm by email that these changes have been made.

 
Good luck with your study.
 
Yours sincerely
  
Dr Emyr Williams
(on behalf of the Department of Psychology Undergraduate Ethics Committee)
 --
 Dr xxx xxx MBPsS
Senior Lecturer and Programme Lead
Psychology (A56),
xxx University,
xxx Road,
xxx,
xxxx xxx
 
Telephone: xxx
Email: xxx

36
Appendix B
Participant Invitation Email
Dear prospective participant

Re: Invitation to participate in research

My name is xxxxx, I am currently a BSc Psychology student in my final year of university and I am conducting
research for my undergraduate dissertation. You are invited to participate in research that will explore altruism.
The survey should take no longer than 20 minutes to complete, therefore, please take some time out to share
your experiences as your feedback is very valuable.

Please read the information sheet attached with details about the investigation. In order to participate in the
research you will need to be:

- A student at a University in the UK

- Aged 18 and above
- Not categorised to be a vulnerable adult such as having mental health illness / homeless
- Able to provide consent independently to participate in this research

The research has been approved by the university’s ethics committee and complies with the British
Psychological Society code of ethics.

Please note there is no obligation to take part in this survey. If you do not wish to participate, please disregard
this invitation. However, if you do wish to participate, and would like to share your views and opinions, please
click on the link below. Please read the instructions carefully and provide your consent before you begin to
answer the questions.

https://xxxxxxx/SE/?SID=SV_ehVLkCaAdkqYBPn

Please do not hesitate to contact me ([email protected]) or my supervisor: Prof. xxxxx

([email protected]) via email if you have any queries or would like further clarification. Thank you very
much in anticipation of your response.

Yours sincerely

xxxxx
[email protected]
37
 Appendix C
Participant Information Sheet

Research Study Title:

A Quantitative Analysis of the Relationship between Empathy and Prosocial Behaviour
to determine the Altruistic Personality

Introduction
My name is xxxxx and this research forms part of my BSc (Hons) Psychology programme at xxxx University.
The project has been approved by xxxx Research Ethics Committee and is being supervised by Prof. xxxx. You
are being invited to take part in this study. Before you agree to do so, it is important that you understand the
purpose and nature of the research and what your participation will involve, if you agree. Please read the
following information carefully, and please do ask if anything is not clear, or if you want more information.
Contact details are given at the end of this information sheet.

What is the purpose of the study and how will it be carried out?
The research objectives are:
1. To investigate the relationship between empathy and proscocial behaviour
2. To determine the altruistic personality

The research methodology is:

1. Quantitative approach looking for correlations between variables
2. Valid and reliable questionnaires and scales readily available in the public domain

If you agree to take part, you may still withdraw at any time, without giving a reason. If that happens, any
information or data you have given will not be used in the study.

What will taking part involve?

Taking part is entirely voluntary, however, if you agree to take part it will entail providing informed consent
electronically and completing an electronic questionnaire prepared via Qualtrics software. The survey should
take no longer than 20 minutes to complete at your convenience and your feedback is very valuable. You may,
however, still withdraw up until the point of data analysis (10th February 2017). Should you wish to do so,
please provide your ID number presented at the beginning of the study and contact Xxxx at
[email protected] in order to remove your data.

38
Will my participation be confidential?
Data collected during the study will be kept strictly confidential and stored in accordance with the Data
Protection Act. There is no way of identifying you as no personal information will be collected apart from
demographic details such as age and gender. The data will only be kept for the purpose of the study and
destroyed thereafter.

Benefits and risks

There are no envisaged benefits or risks to you in taking part. However, if taking part causes discomfort or
distress at any point you may access xxx University’s counselling service on: counselling@xxxx or alternatively
on: xxx

What will you do with the results of the research?

The results of the research will be incorporated into a BSc (Hons) final year dissertation. If, in the future, an
academic publication of the research is planned a report for the external body will be prepared. The results of
the research will be incorporated into a BSc (Hons) final year dissertation. No participant will be named in the
thesis or possible publication of this project.

Contact for further information

Thank you for reading the information sheet. Should you have any questions regarding the research prior to or
after completing the survey, please do not hesitate to contact primarily Xxxx: xxxxx or alternatively my
supervisor Prof. Xxxx.

39
 Appendix D
Participant Informed Consent

Research Study Title:

A Quantitative Analysis of the Relationship between Empathy and Prosocial Behaviour
to determine the Altruistic Personality

Name of Researcher:
xxx

Please tick the box(es) to confirm each statement

I confirm that I have read and understood the Information Sheet dated [********] for the above study.

If I have asked for clarification or for more information, I have had satisfactory responses.

I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without

giving any reason.

I understand that relevant sections of the data collected from me during the study may be looked at by

the researcher and the person supervising the project

I agree to take part in the above study:

Name of Participant: __________________________________

Dated: __________________________________

Name of Researcher: xxx

Name of Supervisor: Professor xxx
Dated: …………………………….

40
 Appendix E
The HEXACO Personality Inventory- Revised

HEXACO-PI-R
(SELF REPORT FORM)

© Kibeom Lee, Ph.D., & Michael C. Ashton, Ph.D.

DIRECTIONS
On the following pages you will find a series of statements about you. Please
read each statement and decide how much you agree or disagree with that
statement. Then write your response in the space next to the statement using the
following scale:
5 = strongly agree
4 = agree
3 = neutral (neither agree nor disagree)
2 = disagree
1 = strongly disagree

Please answer every statement, even if you are not completely sure of your
response.

Please provide the following information about yourself.

Sex (circle): Female Male

Age: ______ years

Year of Study: ________

Marital Status (circle): Single Married Separated Divorced

Parent (circle): Yes No

41
 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neutral 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree

1 I would be quite bored by a visit to an art gallery.

2 I plan ahead and organize things, to avoid scrambling at the last minute.
3 I rarely hold a grudge, even against people who have badly wronged me.
4 I feel reasonably satisfied with myself overall.
5 I would feel afraid if I had to travel in bad weather conditions.
6 I wouldn't use flattery to get a raise or promotion at work, even if I thought it would succeed.
7 I'm interested in learning about the history and politics of other countries.
8 I often push myself very hard when trying to achieve a goal.
9 People sometimes tell me that I am too critical of others.
10 I rarely express my opinions in group meetings.
11 I sometimes can't help worrying about little things.
12 If I knew that I could never get caught, I would be willing to steal a million dollars.
13 I would enjoy creating a work of art, such as a novel, a song, or a painting.
14 When working on something, I don't pay much attention to small details.
15 People sometimes tell me that I'm too stubborn.
16 I prefer jobs that involve active social interaction to those that involve working alone.
17 When I suffer from a painful experience, I need someone to make me feel comfortable.
18 Having a lot of money is not especially important to me.
19 I think that paying attention to radical ideas is a waste of time.
20 I make decisions based on the feeling of the moment rather than on careful thought.
21 People think of me as someone who has a quick temper.
22 On most days, I feel cheerful and optimistic.
23 I feel like crying when I see other people crying.
24 I think that I am entitled to more respect than the average person is.
25 If I had the opportunity, I would like to attend a classical music concert.
26 When working, I sometimes have difficulties due to being disorganized.
27 My attitude toward people who have treated me badly is “forgive and forget”.
28 I feel that I am an unpopular person.
29 When it comes to physical danger, I am very fearful.
30 If I want something from someone, I will laugh at that person's worst jokes.
31 I’ve never really enjoyed looking through an encyclopedia.
32 I do only the minimum amount of work needed to get by.
42
33 I tend to be lenient in judging other people.
34 In social situations, I’m usually the one who makes the first move.
35 I worry a lot less than most people do.
36 I would never accept a bribe, even if it were very large.
37 People have often told me that I have a good imagination.
38 I always try to be accurate in my work, even at the expense of time.
39 I am usually quite flexible in my opinions when people disagree with me.
40 The first thing that I always do in a new place is to make friends.
41 I can handle difficult situations without needing emotional support from anyone else.
42 I would get a lot of pleasure from owning expensive luxury goods.
43 I like people who have unconventional views.
44 I make a lot of mistakes because I don’t think before I act.
45 Most people tend to get angry more quickly than I do.
46 Most people are more upbeat and dynamic than I generally am.
47 I feel strong emotions when someone close to me is going away for a long time.
48 I want people to know that I am an important person of high status.
49 I don’t think of myself as the artistic or creative type.
50 People often call me a perfectionist.
51 Even when people make a lot of mistakes, I rarely say anything negative.
52 I sometimes feel that I am a worthless person.
53 Even in an emergency I wouldn’t feel like panicking.
54 I wouldn’t pretend to like someone just to get that person to do favors for me.
55 I find it boring to discuss philosophy.
56 I prefer to do whatever comes to mind, rather than stick to a plan.
57 When people tell me that I’m wrong, my first reaction is to argue with them.
58 When I’m in a group of people, I’m often the one who speaks on behalf of the group.
59 I remain unemotional even in situations where most people get very sentimental.
60 I’d be tempted to use counterfeit money, if I were sure I could get away with it.

43
 Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ)

Subject ID:_________________

Date:______________________
Below is a list of statements. Please read each statement carefully and rate how frequently
you feel or act in the manner described. Circle your answer on the response form. There are
no right or wrong answers or trick questions. Please answer each question as honestly as you
can.

Never Rarel Sometimes Often Always

y
1. When someone else is feeling 0 1 2 3 4
excited, I tend to get excited too
2. Other people's misfortunes do not 0 1 2 3 4
disturb me a great deal
3. It upsets me to see someone being 0 1 2 3 4
treated disrespectfully
4. I remain unaffected when someone 0 1 2 3 4
close to me is happy
5. I enjoy making other people feel 0 1 2 3 4
better
6. I have tender, concerned feelings for 0 1 2 3 4
people less fortunate than me
7. When a friend starts to talk about his\ 0 1 2 3 4
her problems, I try to steer the
conversation towards something else
8. I can tell when others are sad even 0 1 2 3 4
when they do not say anything
9. I find that I am "in tune" with other 0 1 2 3 4
people's moods
10 I do not feel sympathy for people 0 1 2 3 4
. who cause their own serious illnesses
11 I become irritated when someone 0 1 2 3 4
. cries
12 I am not really interested in how 0 1 2 3 4
. other people feel
13 I get a strong urge to help when I see 0 1 2 3 4
. someone who is upset
14 When I see someone being treated 0 1 2 3 4
. unfairly, I do not feel very much pity
for them
15 I find it silly for people to cry out of 0 1 2 3 4
. happiness
16 When I see someone being taken 0 1 2 3 4
. advantage of, I feel kind of protective
towards him\her
 44
Prosocialness Scale for Adults’ (PSA)

INSTRUCTIONS

The following statements describe a large number of common situations. There are no ‘right’
or ‘wrong’ answers; the best answer is the immediate, spontaneous one.

Read carefully each phrase and mark the answer that reflects your first reaction.

1 = never/almost never true 2 = occasionally true 3 = sometimes true 4 = often true 5 = almost always/always
true

1. I am pleased to help my friends/colleagues in their activities

2. I share the things that I have with my friends
3. I try to help others
4. I am available for volunteer activities to help those who are in need
5. I am emphatic with those who are in need
6. I help immediately those who are in need
7. I do what I can to help others avoid getting into trouble
8. I intensely feel what others feel
9. I am willing to make my knowledge and abilities available to others
10. I try to console those who are sad
11. I easily lend money or other things
12. I easily put myself in the shoes of those who are in discomfort
13. I try to be close to and take care of those who are in need
14. I easily share with friends any good opportunity that comes to me
15. I spend time with those friends who feel lonely
16. I immediately sense my friends’ discomfort even when it is not directly communicated to
me
45