EFFECTS OF EMPATHY AND RELATEDNESS ON WILLINGNESS TO HELP (CARE LEVEL).
Contributors: University of Louisville.
Published: 1992
Number of pages: 148
Subjects: Psychology, Social.; Health Sciences, Nursing.
Description: The study was conducted to test hypotheses about a multidimensional nature of empathy and hypotheses regarding kin selection altruism in nurses who put themselves at risk in order to help another. Subjects were instructed to feel a patient's emotions, think about the situation from the patient's point of view, or think about the tasks needed to care for a hypothetical patient who was seriously ill with hepatitis B, and possibly was HIV positive. They indicated their willingness to care for this patient, who varied in degree of genetic relatedness to themselves. Results indicated that there were no significant differences in helping measures (levels of care risk and number of shifts) as a function of empathic condition. Weakness in the perspective taking instructions and a strong view by the majority of subjects of empathy as a part of the communication process may have contributed to the lack of effects of empathy on the dependent variables.

The second experimental independent variable was relatedness. Results indicated no significant differences in care level choice as a function of relatedness. There were, however, significant differences in number of shifts nurses would be willing to work in a week. Those caring for a brother agreed to marginally more shifts than those caring for a cousin, and significantly more shifts than those caring for one who was not related. There were, however, no differences among brothers, one of whom was a brother, one a half brother, and one an adopted brother. Nurses felt equally close to the patient in each of the brother conditions. Thus, kin selection hypotheses were not supported.

Multiple regression equations showed that subjects based their care level choices on confidence in competence, self-locus of control, moral commitment, and inversely on personal safety, perceived risk, and guilt, representing 35.6% of the variance. They based their shift choices on how close they would feel to the patient, if the situation were real, how the patient would do the same for them, if the situation were reversed, what their family would say, moral commitment, and inversely on what staff would say and personal safety, representing 27.1% of the variance.
Notes: Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 53-09, Section: B, page: 5005.

Thesis (PH.D.)--UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE, 1992.

School code: 0110.