Psychology 607 - Perspective Taking and Empathy
Fall 1998
Thursdays, 1:30-4:00, Taylor Room (Straub 143)

COURSE CONTENT:
What does it mean to take another person=s perspective? If we put ourselves in someone else=s place, do we really feel what she feels? Does having a more accurate perception of another person=s state of mind make us more sympathetic to his plight? These are questions that won=t be answered by this seminar--but they will be asked and discussed.

In this seminar, we will examine the two related and sometimes overlapping concepts of perspective taking and empathy. The former is often associated with a cognitive skill, the latter with an emotional capacity. However, even a brief survey of the psychological literature on these topics reveals that the distinction between the two is often blurred, reversed, or not even made. In addition, both concepts have been as a stable individual difference as well as the outcome to a variety of transitory manipulations.

Although I have no objections to people exhibiting empathic behavior, the goal of this seminar is to examine and understand the phenomenon, rather than to create it. (If you are looking for training in interpersonal skills, seek elsewhere.) Given that my background is in social cognition, a greater proportion of the readings will be drawn from social cognition and empirical social psychology sources than one might assume with this particular topic. Laboratory investigations of mere parts of processes and single steps in hypothesized mechanisms will form the core of readings, perhaps frustrating those who wish to view perspective taking and empathy at a more molar level. However, despite using social cognition as a starting point, the seminar will branch out into other directions, including development, interpersonal relationships, aggression, altruism and gender differences. Furthermore, I am very interested in exploring other topics within the seminar that are related to the background and interests of the seminar participants.

COURSE OBJECTIVES:
1) Overview of various definitions and measurement and methodological tools used in the study of perspective taking and empathy.

2) Sample both classic Alandmark@ studies as well as very recent readings on the topic of perspective taking and empathy.

3) Explore perspective taking and empathy as topics that integrate different fields of study within psychology.

4) Provide the opportunity for an in-depth examination of specific issues related to empathy and perspective taking. It is hoped that these opportunities will lead participants to pursue new research questions that either stem directly from the course content, or are related to participants= other research interests.

5) Provide a forum to engage in activities critical to field of psychology: the generation, presentation and discussion of ideas.

COURSE READINGS:
Readings include recent articles and some classics. The majority are from social psychology sources, with additional sources from other areas of psychology. There is no textbook for the course. Required readings (noted with an A*@) are to be read by everyone before the seminar meets. Related readings are suggested but not required, and additional related readings may be suggested throughout the course, by other seminar members or the instructor. Master copies of readings will be available in the psychology department lounge (Straub 122). If you have problems with this arrangement, please let me know. In addition, full references are provided for all the readings, so you may read them in the original journal or book if you wish.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS:
1) Class participation: This course is a seminar, thus class participation is extremely important. All participants are expected to read all required readings prior to class and be prepared to discuss them fully. In particular, participants should try to go beyond the information provided in the readings, raising new questions, critiquing methodology, and making connections to other readings.

As a formal contribution to each discussion, each week participants should prepare either a set of questions prompted by the readings that they would like to discuss OR an outline of an experiment to test some idea prompted by the readings. The goal of this assignment is to promote high level discussion of the current week=s readings. However, participants are also encouraged to bring in questions or ideas about previous weeks= material. We may not always get a chance to discuss each person=s questions or outline, and therefore, I ask that everyone send their question/ outline to other seminar participants via email by the end of the day Thursday (I will provide you with a class email list after the first class). However, your question/outline should always be prepared BEFORE class in order to facilitate discussion.

Because attendance is a prerequisite of in-class participation, please attend. If you know in advance that you must miss a class, I would appreciate it if you let me know. I anticipate many interesting ideas and contributions to come from you--the seminar participants--and thus your absence affects the quality of other participants= experience in the seminar.

2) Leading Discussion: Although you should always be prepared to contribute to the class, each seminar participant will be asked to lead discussion (probably twice during the quarter, depending on the number of participants). Part of the goal for leading discussion is to bring out the main points and issues of the readings but your facilitation should go beyond summarizing the readings. For at least one of the times you lead discussion, you should cover something not on the syllabus (i.e., your preparation should include sources not listed as additional readings). This may be something related to your paper topic (see below), or something related to your particular area of expertise. For the other time, you may use the additional readings as the basis of your additional coverage, but keep in mind some weeks have scanter additional readings than others, and for these weeks, you will also have to pull from additional sources to lead discussion. Please feel free to talk with me about your ideas for leading discussion. Possible formats include (but are not limited to!) linking the week=s readings to another area of psychology, applying the readings to a Areal life@ context or social problem, raising unasked and unanswered questions (and suggesting possible answers), or identifying emergent frameworks or recurrent themes. You may pick one of the routes, or combine two or more. Ideally, issues from previous class meetings can also be integrated into later class discussions. The discussion leader should bring some additional Aexpertise@ to the discussion, by doing extra reading, having previous experience with the topic, and/or providing additional illustrations of the points he or she wishes to make. If you use additional readings not on the syllabus, it would be very helpful if you could bring a list of the references for the class.

3) Research paper: Each student will write a final paper that will be due at a date during finals week to be announced. There are two possible formats for this paper:

a. You may write an introduction and methods section for an empirical study (or series of studies). If it is not explicitly clear from the theory outlined in your introduction, you should also provide expected results. I encourage students to use this option as a way to develop a viable research project that can actually be conducted. OR

b. You may write a theoretical paper about a topic related to the class. The theoretical paper should be Psychological Review type paper, outlining a novel theoretical interpretation of pre-existing literature.

Whichever format you pick, a description outlining what you plan to do for your paper (about a page or two) is due in class the week of November 19. I encourage you to discuss your ideas about your paper with me at any point. Each of you will read and provide feedback on the paper of another seminar participant and thus, each of you will be given feedback that you should consider incorporating into your final draft. The final paper (either format) should be written in APA style.

GRADING:
The course may be taken graded or pass/no-pass. In order to pass the course, each separate component (participation, presentation, and paper) must be at a passing level (non-compensatory model). If you take the course for a grade, your paper will be 60% of your grade and participation (weekly contributions, plus presentations) will be 40% of your grade.

OTHER DETAILS:
As listed in the bulletin, registration for the seminar requires the instructor's permission. Psychology Department graduate students are automatically eligible.

If you have a documented disability and anticipate needing accommodations in this course, please make arrangements to meet with me soon. Please request that the Counselor for Students with Disabilities send a letter verifying your disability.

COURSE SCHEDULE:
This schedule will be adhered to as closely as possible. Should changes occur, you will be notified. Please note that the seminar DOES meet during Finals Week. Please check your finals schedule now and let me know if the class time conflicts with a scheduled final.

* Denotes REQUIRED reading. Other articles are additional, related reading.

Oct 8 - Week II. Definitions and Basics   
Required:
*Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: A two-stage model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 752-766.

*Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.

*Ickes, W. (1993). Empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality, 61, 587-610.

*Levenson R. W., & Rueff, A. M. (1992). Empathy: A physiological substrate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 234-346.

*Wispé, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a concept, a word is needed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 314-321.

Additional:
Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality, 55, 19-39.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Empathic concern and the Muscular Dystrophy Telethon: Empathy as a multidimensional construct. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 223-229.

Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307-316.

Ickes, W. (in press). Measuring empathic accuracy. Chapter to appear in J. Hall and F. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal Sensitivity: Theory, measurement, and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525-543.

Oswald, P. A. (1996). The effects of cognitive and affective perspective taking on empathic concern and altruistic helping. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 613-623.

Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory investigations in empathy. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271-314). New York: Academic Press.

Strayer, J. (1987). Affective and cognitive perspectives on empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 218-244). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oct 15 - Week III. Mechanisms and Processes
(a.k.a., ABut I thought this was a seminar on empathy?!@)
Required:
*Hass, G. H. (1984). Perspective taking and self-awareness: Drawing an E on your forehead. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 788-798.

*Hodges, S. D., & Wegner, D. M. (1997). The mental control of empathic accuracy. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic Accuracy (pp. 311-339). New York: Guilford.

*Karniol, R. (1995). The implications of the transformation rule model for predicting each other=s psychological experiences in close relationships. In S. Shulman (Ed.), Human Development, Vol. 7: Close relationships and socioemotional development (pp. 203-217). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.

*Mendoza, R. J. (1996). Introduction to the topic of empathy. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.

*Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309-315.

Additional:
Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 751-758.

Bernstein, W. M., & Davis, M. H. (1982). Perspective-taking, self-consciousness, and accuracy in person perception. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 1-19.

Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (1998). The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 865-877.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 96-99.

Karniol, R. (1990). Reading people=s minds: A transformation rule model for predicting others= thoughts and feelings. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 211-247). San Diego: Academic Press.

McRae, C. N., & Milne, A. B. (1992). A curry for your thoughts: Empathic effects on counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 625-630.

Stephenson, B., & Wicklund, R. A. (1983). Self-directed attention and taking the other=s perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 58-77.

Stillwell, A. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). The construction of victim and perpetrator memories: Accuracy and distortion in role-based accounts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1157-1172.

Oct 22 - NO CLASS (start reading for next week)

Oct 29 - Week IV. Development of Empathy
Required
Social development:
*Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Maszk, P., Smith, M., O=Boyle, C. & Suh, K. (1994). The relationship of emotionality and regulation to dispositional and situational empathy-related responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 776-797.

*Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, W., & Chapman, M. (1992). Development of concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 28, 126-136.

Cognitive development:
*Flavell, J. H. (1992). Perspectives on perspective taking. In H. Beilin & P. Pufall (Eds.), Piaget=s theory: Prospects and possibilities (pp. 107-139). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

*Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1992). Why the child=s theory of mind really is a theory. Mind and Language, 7, 145-171.

*Gordon, R. M. (1992). The simulation theory: Objections and misconceptions. Mind and Language, 7, 11-34.

*Higgins, E. T. (1981). Role taking and social judgment: Alternative developmental processes and perspectives. In J. H. Flavell and L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures (pp. 119-153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Both:
*Happe, F. G. E., & Frith, U. (1996). Theory of mind and social impairment in children with conduct disorder. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 385-398.

*Eisenberg, N., Murphy, B. C., & Shepard, S. (1997). The development of empathic accuracy. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic Accuracy (pp. 73-116). New York: Guilford. [Consider reading this chapter first as an introduction to empathy and development. If you already know a lot about developmental psychology, you can skim this chapter.]

Additional:
Davis, M. H., & Franzoi, S. L. (1991). Stability and change in adolescent self-consciousness and empathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 7-87.

Davis, M., Luce, C., & Kraus, S. J. (1994). The heritability of characteristics associated with dispositional empathy. Journal of Personality, 62, 369-391.

Freeman, E. B. (1984). The development of empathy in young children: In search of a definition. Child Study Journal, 13, 235-245.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Smith, M., & Maszk, P. (1996). The relations of children=s dispositional empathy-related responding to their emotionality, regulation and social functioning. Developmental Psychology, 32, 195-209.

Goldman, A. I. (1989). Interpretation psychologized. Mind and Language, 7, 11-34.

Hoffman, M. (1984). Interaction of affect and cognition in empathy. In C. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, Cognition and Behavior (pp. 103-131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meltzoff, A. N. (1993). The centrality of motor coordination and proprioception in social and cognitive development: From shared actions to shared minds. In G. J. P. Savelsbergh (Ed.), The development of coordination in infancy (Advances in psychology) (pp. 463-496). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Robinson, J. L., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Emde, R. N. (1994). Patterns of development in early empathic behavior: Environmental and child constitutional influences. Social Development, 3, 125-145.

Sacks, O. (1995). An anthropologist on Mars. In O. Sacks, An anthropologist on Mars (pp. 244-296). New York: Vintage Books.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Robinson, J. L., & Emde, R. N. (1992). The development of empathy in twins. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1038-1047.

Nov 5 - Week V. Empathy and the self
Required:
READING NOTE: The first two articles are listed out of alphabetical order because they were published next to each other in the same issue of the journal that way and it will make more sense to read them together, with Cialdini et al. before Batson et al. Read the two reply/comments that follow too to get the full taste of the debate.

*Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481-494.

*Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 495-509.

*Batson, D. C., Sympson, S. C., Hindman, J. L., Decruz, P., Todd, R. M., Weeks, J. L., Jennings, G., & Burris, C. T. (1996). AI=ve been there, too@: Effect on empathy of prior experience with a need. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 474-482.

*Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 713-726.

*Houston, D. A. (1990). Empathy and the self: Cognitive and emotional influences on the evaluation of negative affect in others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 859-868.

Additional:
Batson, C. D., Early, S. & Salvaranic, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 751-758.

Krebs, D. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1134-1146.

Traxler, M. J., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1993). Improving written communication through perspective-taking. Language and Communicative Processes, 8, 311-334.

Nov 12 - Week VI. Sex Differences
Required:
*Graham, T., & Ickes, W. (1997). When women=s intuition isn=t greater than men=s. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic Accuracy (pp. 117-143). New York: Guilford.

*Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100-131.

*Klein, K. J. K., & Hodges, S. D. (1998). Gender differences and motivation in empathic accuracy: When it pays to care.

*Zahn-Waxler, C., Cole, P. M., & Barrett, K. C. (1991). Guilt and empathy: Sex differences and implications for development of depression. In J. Garber and K. A. Dodge (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation (pp. 243-272). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Additional:
Bell, K. L. (1992, August). Sex differences in perceiving and detecting deceit. In B. M. DePaulo (Chair), Detecting lies from behavior: Current findings and questions. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.

Bernieri, F. J., Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., & Rosenthal, R. (1994). Measuring person perception accuracy: Another look at self-other agreement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 367-378.

Hall, J. A., & Halberstadt, A. G. (1997). Subordination and nonverbal sensitivity: A hypothesis in search of support. In M. R. Walsh (Ed.), Women, men, and gender: Ongoing debates (pp. 120-133). New Haven: Yale University Press. (Note: This chapter is the companion/oppsosing chapter to the LaFrance & Henley chapter below).

Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 712-722.

LaFrance, M., & Henley, N. M. (1997). On oppressing hypotheses: Or, differences in nonverbal sensitivity revisited. In M. R. Walsh (Ed.), Women, men, and gender: Ongoing debates (pp. 104-119). New Haven: Yale University Press. (Note: this chapter is the companion/opposing view to the Hall & Halberstadt chapter above).

Lennon, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Gender and age differences in empathy and sympathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 195-217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nov 19 - Week VII. Empathy in Relationships
Required
Empathy in clinical/counseling relationships:
*Duan, C., & Hill, C. E. (1996). The current state of empathy research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 261-274.

*Marcia, J. (1987). Empathy and psychotherapy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 81-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

*Robiner, W. N., & Storandt, M. (1983). Client perceptions of the therapeutic relationship as a function of client and counselor age. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 96-99.

*Rogers, C. (1975). Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. The Counseling Psychologist, 5, 2-10.

 Empathy in close relationships:
*Arriaga, X. B., & Rusbult, C. E. (1998). Standing in my partner=s shoes: Partner perspective taking and reactions to accommodative dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 927-948.

*Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Blackstone, T. (1995). When the head protects the heart: Empathic accuracy in dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 629-641.

*Stinson, L. & Ickes, W. (1992). Empathic accuracy in the interactions of male friends versus male strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 787-797.

Additional:
Davis, M. H., & Oathout, H. A. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic relationships: Empathy and relational competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 397-410.

Davis, M. H., & Oathout, H. A. (1992). The effect of dispositional empathy on romantic relationship behaviors: Heterosexual anxiety as a moderating influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 76-83.

Franzoi, S. L., Davis, M. H., & Young, R. D. (1985). The effects of private self-consciousness and perspective taking on satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1584-1594.

Hancock, M., & Ickes, W. (1996). Empathic accuracy: When does the perceiver-target relationship make a difference? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 179-199.

Marangoni, C., Garcia, S., Ickes, W., & Teng, G. (1995). Empathic accuracy in a clinically relevant setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 854-869.

McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321-336.

Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53-78.

Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923-929.

Dec 3 - Week VIII. Failures of empathy, costs of empathy
Required:
Barr, C. L., & Kleck, R. E. (1995). Self-other perceptions of the intensity of facial expressions of emotion: Do we know what we show? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 608-618.

Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Todd, R. M., Brummett, B. H., Shaw, L. L., & Aldeguer, C. M. R. (1995). Empathy and the collective good: Caring for one of the others in a social dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 619-631.

Keysar, B. (1994). The illusory transparency of intention: Linguistic perspective taking in text. Cognitive Psychology, 26, 165-208.

Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1993). Do people know how others view them? An empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 145-161.

Shaw, L. L., Batson, C. D., & Todd, R. M. (1994). Empathy avoidance: Forestalling feeling for another in order to escape the motivational consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 879-887.

Vorauer, J., D., & Ratner, R. K. (1996). Who=s going to make the first move? Pluralistic ignorance as an impediment to relationship formation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 483-506.

Additional:
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A., & Wotman, R. S. (1990). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives of anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 994-1005.

Dawes, R. M. (1990). The potential nonfalsity of the false consensus effect. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making: A tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn (pp. 179-199). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Fenigstein, A. (1984). Self-consciousness and the overperception of self as a target. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 860-870.

Marks, G., & Miller, N. (1987). Ten years of research on the false consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 72-90.

Miller, R. S. (1987). Empathic embarrassment: Situational and personal determinants of reactions to the embarrassment of another. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1061-1069.

Robins, R. W., & John, O. P. (1996). Effects of visual perspective and narcissism on self-perception: Is seeing believing? Psychological Science, 8, 37-42.

Rothbart, M., & Hallmark, W. (1988). Ingroup--Outgroup differences in the perceived efficacy of coercion and conciliation in resolving social conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 248-257.

Vorauer, J. D., & Claude, S. (1998). Perceived versus actual transparency goals in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 371-385.

Dec 10 - Week IX. Prosocial & beneficial aspects of empathy
Required:
*Aderman, D., Brehm, S. S., & Katz, L. B. (1974). Empathic observation of an innocent victim: The just world revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 342-347.

*Batson, D. C., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, R. R., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105-118.

*Richardson, D. R., Hammock, G. S., Smith, S. M., Gardner, W. G., & Signo, S. (1994). Empathy as a cognitive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 275-289.

*Stephenson, B., & Wicklund, R. A. (1983). Self-directed attention and taking the other=s perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 58-77.

*Weinstein, N. D., & Lachendro, E. (1982). Egocentrism as a source of unrealistic optimism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 195-200.

Additional
The following seven papers all have to do with attributional differences and empathy:
Archer, R. L., Foushee, H. C., Davis, M. H. (1979). Emotional empathy in a courtroom simulation: A person-situation interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 275-291.

Brehm, S. S., & Aderman, D. (1977). On the relationship between empathy and the actor versus observer hypothesis. Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 340-346.

Croxton, J. (1989). Attributional activity in explaining disconfirmed expectancies: The search for constraint. Social Cognition, 7, 338-352.

Galper, R. E. (1976). Turning observers into actors: Differential causal attributions as a function of Aempathy.@ Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 328-335.

Gould, R., & Sigall, H. (1977). The effects of empathy and outcome on attribution: An examination of the divergent-perspectives hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 480-491.

Regan, D. T., & Totten, J. (1975). Empathy and attribution: Turning observers into actors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 850-856.

Storms, M. D. (1973). Videotape and the attribution process: Reversing actors' and observers' points of view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 165-175.

Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (1997). A fundamental prediction error: Self-others discrepancies in risk preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 45-53.

Langer, E. J., & Piper, A. (1988). Television from a mindful mindless perspective. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Television as a social issue: Applied social psychology annual, vol. 8 (pp. 247-260). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Richardson, D. R., Green, L. R., & Lago, T. (1998). The relationship between perspective-taking and nonaggressive responding in the face of an attack. Journal of Personality, 66, 235-256.