Sympathy and Empathy: Emotional Responses

to Advertising Dramas
JENNIFER EDSON ESCALAS
BARBARA B. STERN*

This research examines differences in consumers' sympathy and empathy re-

sponses to teievised drama commercials. The research framework is multidisci-
plinary, for construct definition from humanities disciplines (aesthetics and philos-
ophy) grounds the empirical testing of sympathy and empathy responses to
advertising. Valid and reliable measurement instruments are developed to test
relationships between sympathy and empathy as responses to classical and vi-
gnette advertising dramas. Results of two experiments indicate that sympathy
responses mediate the effect of a drama advertisement's form on empathy re-
sponses, with both sympathy and empathy directly enhancing positive attitudes to
an advertisement.

T he purpose of this study is to distinguish between sym-

pathy and empathy as separate but related constructs
and to test the influence of each as emotional responses to
advertising dramas. The rationale for examining the linked
constructs is that prior empirical research has borrowed but
one half of the sympathy/empathy system, treating empathy
as a monolithic response measured on a bipolar continuum
ranging from empathy to nonempathy (Boiler t990; Boiler,
Babakus, and Olson 1989; Boiler and Olson 1991; Deighton
and Hoch 1993; Deighton, Romer, and McQueen 1989;
Wells 1989). More recent empathy research follows suit by
not including the role of sympathy as an emotional response
to persuasive appeals (see Aaker and Williams [1998] for
a review). The current study aims to expand the research
domain to include both sympathy and empathy as a more
comprehensive system of emotional responses, to begin to
explore ways in which sympathy and empathy differ and
relate to each other, and to test sympathy and empathy in
an experimental setting. In so doing, we use Stem's (1994)
labels for different drama types (classical/vignette) and adapt
them to reflect Deighton and Hoch's (1993) distinction be-
tween advertising dramas that show emotions versus those
that teach viewers how to have them.
Our study shifts the focus from the stimulus-side cate-
gorization of dramas and interpretive analysis of consumer
*Jennifer Edson Escalas is an assistant professor in the marketing de-
partment at the University of Arizona, Tucson, 85721-0108; jescalas®
bpa,arizona.edu, Barbara B, Stem is professor II and chair of the marketing
department at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Faculty of
Management, Newark, NJ 07102; hbstem@aol,com. The authors thank
Dawn Iacobucci, Jim Bettman, Shankar Ganesan, Hans Baumgartner, Scott
McKenzie, the editor, associate editor, and three reviewers for their help
with this research.
566
responses to the empirical measurement of response-side
effects. To do so, two new scales are developed—one for
sympathy and one for empathy—that enable the measure-
ment of response differentiation, relatedness, and strength.
The underlying assumption is that the different responses
of sympathy and empathy are interconnected parts of a sys-
tem rather than mutually exclusive responses and that the
reconnection of sympathy to the empathy research stream
allows for a more informed approach to emotional re-
sponses. The empiricization of response differences that in-
fluence attitudes to an ad is the basis for our construction
of a response model rooted in a distinction between sym-
pathy and empathy.
The concept of emotional response differentiation rep-
resents a retum to the tradition in multidisciplinary research,
where disciplines such as aesthetic criticism, philosophy,
and psychology converge on the existence of two constructs
(Morrison 1988). Differentiation centers on the contrast be-
tween a self-conscious, emotionally cognizant, sympathetic
observer who remains "outside" a textual or real-life stim-
ulus and an unself-conscious, emotionally absorbed, em-
pathic participant who loses him/herself in it. Even though
both sympathy and empathy are considered feelings re-
sponses to created works, they are categorized as different
response types. The logic is that people who experience
sympathy remain emotionally conscious of their personal
lives and understand but do not directly reexperience an-
other's feelings (Langfeld [1920] 1967), whereas people
who experience empathy completely forget their own per-
sonal existence by sharing the feelings of the characters. In
consumer research, even though sympathy is not mentioned
by name, Deighton and Hoch make a similar distinction
between emotional responses communicated by displays of

© 2003 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc, • Vol, 29 • March 2003

All rights reserved, 0093-5301/2003/2904-0009$10,00
SYMPATHY AND EMPATHY DRAMA AD RESPONSES
feelings whose intention and meaning can be interpreted by
consumers—that is, sympathy—and emotional responses
elicited by feelings claims, following the empathic path to
persuasion. The former response can properly be called sym-
pathy, for consumers can "conceivably be quite dispassion-
ate" (Deighton and Hoch 1993, p. 267) rather than em-
pathically moved to manifest some of the physiological
correlates of emotion. In order to design scales that measure
the differences more precisely, we must first clarify the con-
fused terminological history of both constructs.
TWISTED fflSTORY
The need for clarification stems from the constructs'
twisted linguistic heritage, so convoluted that neither term
has necessarily meant the same thing to any two researchers.
For centuries, the terms have been so loosely used that mean-
ing is shifting and variable. To cut through the confusion,
we re-ask the basic definitional questions—what is sym-
pathy? and what is empathy?—in an advertising context.
We emphasize the importance of context-specific definitions,
for advertising stimuli exist in the domain of created media
representations rather than that of real-life events, and re-
sponses relate to media phenomena rather than to naturally
occurring events. The question of what to call the responses
has hampered knowledge transfer from multidisciplinary
sources. Terminological inconsistency and mutability is part
of the baggage that modem psychology inherited (Strayer
1987; Wispe, 1986, 1987), exacerbated by flip-flops in
meaning during this century. Up to the 1950s, "sympathy"
was the word of choice in research, even though it often
referred to what is now called "empathy." However, from
the late 1950s to the present, the situation was reversed,
with "empathy" being the word of choice, even though it
often refers to what is now called "sympathy." The current
confusion is a result of both the gobbling up of each term
by the other and the flipped meanings at the century's half-
way mark. Keeping in mind that our study's focus is on
responses to created works, specifically ads, we tum to the
most theoretically grounded source of construct differenti-
ation—the late nineteenth century research of psychological
aestheticians (Vivas and Krieger 1953), who drew from
moral philosophy (ethics) and Aristotelian aesthetics.
SYMPATHY AND EMPATHY DEFINED
Sympathy: With-Feeling
In consumer research, whether or not sympathy is named,
the emotional response is said to be a person's awareness
of the feelings of another, but not absorption in the feelings
themselves (Deighton and Hoch 1993; Stem 1994). This
definition accords with the traditional definition of the term,
which entered English nearly three centuries ago via Hume's
A Treatise of Human Nature ([1739] 1968), Hume's work
set forth the logic of sympathy that entered the social sci-
ences (Mercer 1972), referring to "an emotional response
stemming from another's emotional state or condition that
567
is not identical to the other's emotion, but consists of feel-
ings of sorrow or concem for another's welfare" (Eisenberg
and Miller 1987, p. 92). Sympathy reflects "the difference
between the one sympathizing and the object of sympathy
. . . always somewhat present in consciousness" (Langfeld
1967, p. 138). That is, sympathy is a heightened awareness
(Wispe 1986) of another person's state of mind and his or
her circumstances (Mercer 1972) stemming from recogni-
tion of his or her feelings.
Empathy: In-Feeling
"Empathy" is the more recent term in English, entering
the vocabulary only in the last century. The credit for trans-
lation into English goes to Edward Bradford Titchener
(1909a, 1909b), who coined the word empathy to express
the difference between einfuhiung (in-feeling) and mitge-
fuhiung (with-feeling) (Vischer [1873] 1994), which was
already in the English lexicon as sympathy (Wispe 1987).
Consumer research has drawn from the traditional defini-
tion of the empathy response as an involuntary and unself-
conscious merging with another's feelings. The term's his-
torical and etymological roots lie in the pagan mystic phrase
that expresses this absorption—"I am you and you are I"
(see Buber [1937] 1970, pp. 133-134). From about 1800
onward, the phrase appeared in German philosophy (Mall-
grave and Ikonomou 1994; Shipley 1931), and by the tum
of the century, the original German word had entered re-
search on aesthetic psychology (Lipps 1897, 1903-1906a,
t903-1906b). Empathy refers to a person's capacity to feel
within or in another person's feelings (Langfeld 1967, p.
t38), and most researchers now consider it "an emotional
response that stems from another's emotional state or con-
dition and that is congment with the other's emotional state
or situation" (Eisenberg and Strayer 1987, p. 5). Eisenberg
and Strayer note the current cross-disciplinary agreement
that empathy is the act of feeling into another's affective
experience (1987). Briefly, an empathy response is a per-
son's absorption in the feelings of another.
To sum up, whereas sympathy stems from the perspective
of an observer who is conscious of another's feelings, em-
pathy stems from that of a participant who vicariously
merges with another's feelings. In sympathy, rather than
one's feelings being merged in the object, they mn parallel
with the object (Langfeld 1967). The difference is analogous
to potential responses to watching an individual suck on a
lemon (Eisenberg and Miller 1987): a sympathetic response
consists of thoughts about what the lemon sucker might
perceive or want, whereas an empathic response consists of
an involuntary puckering and watering of the observer's
mouth. Table 1 presents a summary of the definitional issues
in the sympathy/empathy contrast.
HYPOTHESES
Hypothesis 1: Construct Differentiation
Let us begin by emphasizing that in the advertising con-
text, even though dramas contain the same attributes as film
568
TABLE 1
DEFINITIONAL ISSUES
Empathy
Primary component Affective
Feeling
Control Involuntary
Self-other differentiation Absent
Self-other orientation Self
Loses self in other
Relation to other Merging with other
Opposite Nonempathy
Indifference
Attitudinal effects Direct
and theatrical performances, they are not equivalent in
length, depth, or complexity (Mick 1987). The 60-second
television commercial lacks what Aristotle called the "mag-
nitude" necessary to achieve the full panoply of emotional
responses (Fergusson 1961, p. 66). Notwithstanding adver-
tising's brevity, the structural similarity between drama
commercials and its lengthier antecedents suggests that anal-
ogous sympathy and empathy responses, albeit less pro-
foundly felt, are likely to be elicited. The following dis-
cussion is based on the structural similarities, but ratchets
down drama theory to fit advertising constraints.
In consumer drama research. Wells (1989) was the first
to introduce the construct of empathy and its connection to
advertising drama, pointing out that drama's performative
aspect draws viewers into an ad. His work and that of later
researchers such as Deighton and Hoch (1993) and Stem
(1994) draw from the Aristotelian definition of drama (Fer-
gusson 1961) as a form of representation designed to be
performed for viewing audiences (shown) rather than nar-
rated to them (told). Stem focuses on structure (as distinct
from content), positing a dichotomous typology in which
classical drama—the traditional form—is characterized by
unified linear plots leading toward a resolution, causality,
and characters who interact and change.
The other dramatic form in Stem's dichotomy is labeled
"vignette," and her tables 2 and 3 (1994) present the dif-
ferences in detail. Briefiy, the vignette's stmctural attributes
differ from those of the classical form as follows: vignettes
are characterized by multiple unconnected episodes (rather
than a single unified plot), repetitive organization (rather
than linear), and characters contained within each episode
(rather than interacting with those in other episodes). Here,
the repetitive episodic form and the multitude of different
characters lack the "linear order, sustained human interac-
tion, and causal change" (Stem 1994, p. 613) necessary to
absorb viewers. This form is said to evoke the response of
sympathy rather than empathy, because viewers are detached
observers of the lives of others and remain self-aware rather
than absorbed in the performance. That is, a response di-
chotomy of sympathy or empathy is posited as parallel to
the stimulus dichotomy.
However, whereas our study accords with the dichotomous
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Sympathy
Cognitive
Thinking
Voluntary
Present
Other
Distance from other
Understanding of other
Antipathy
Hostility
Indirect
model of drama forms, it does not follow the parallel response
dichotomy. Rather, we treat sympathy and empathy as dif-
ferent but related responses to classical drama, viewing
Stem's association of sympathy with vignettes as overly sche-
matic. The rationale is that only the classical form, unlike
vignettes (Stem 1994), possesses a unified plot (characters-
in-action), linear development, causality, and interaction. Sup-
port for the influence of traditionally stmctured forms on
consumer responses is corroborated by analyses of story
grammars found in text linguistics, discourse analysis, and
semiotics (Mick 1987). Here, story grammars represent in-
dividuals' tacit knowledge about the characteristic structures
of traditional stories, comparable to cohesively structured
classical dramas. Individuals invoke story grammars to enable
"rapid, schema-driven comprehension under time compressed
conditions" (Mick 1987, p. 265) inherent in television ads. It
follows that individuals faced with the nontraditional vignette
structure, in which rapid jumps from unrelated characters and
events occur, are less likely to invoke schemas for compre-
hending emotion because the viewer is unable to invoke sche-
mas for comprehending emotion, let alone lose him/herself
in what s/he sees (Shweder 1994).
We find further support for the association between clas-
sical drama and both response types in the consumer and
advertising research literature. For example, findings from
research on ads that tell a story indicate that well-developed
stories are better able to hook ad viewers into the commercial
(a concept that shares the absorption characteristic of em-
pathy), as well as elicit higher levels of positive emotions,
compared to poorly developed stories (Escalas, Moore, and
Edell, forthcoming). Drama/empathy consumer research
also supports the power of classical drama to evoke sym-
pathy and empathy insofar as its structural attributes have
the capacity to draw consumers into comprehending or vi-
cariously participating in a commercial (Deighton and Hoch
1993; Wells 1989). Hence, our first hypothesis predicts that
classical dramas will evoke responses that are both more
sympathetic and more empathetic than responses to
vignettes.
HIA: Classical dramas are more likely to evoke sym-
pathy than vignette dramas.
SYMPATHY AND EMPATHY DRAMA AD RESPONSES
HIB: Classical dramas are more likely to evoke em-
pathy than vignette dramas.
Hypotheses 2-4: Construct Relationships
Sequentiality: Sympathy and Empathy Responses to
Advertising Dramas. Hypothesis 2 treats sympathy and
empathy as sequentially related emotional responses to clas-
sical dramas, proposing that sympathy is a precursor of em-
pathy. The relationship shown in the first three stages in
figure 1 is one of progression, in which classical dramas
evoke sympathy as a process toward empathy. The proces-
sual concept is found in many research literatures, with em-
pathy always posited as an end state preceded by sympathy.
This relationship is posited on the basis of hierarchically
ranked, sequential responses, with empathy consistendy
conceived of as a more highly ranked end state that works
through a less highly ranked sympathy.
In aesthetics, sympathy and empathy are described as
stages that the same person can go through in experiencing
drama, with empathy the ultimate stage of drama reception
(Langfeld 1967). In psychology, the process is conceived
of as one that moves from sympathy to empathy, with rec-
ognition of emotions conveyed by contextual and verbal
content (Strayer 1987) and culminating in vicarious emotion
sharing. In advertising and consumer research, a parallel
progression is described in the high-involvement hierarchy-
of-effects model (Lavidge and Steiner 1961; McGuire 1978;
Ray 1973). Note that this hierarchy refers only to high-
involvement advertising (Krugman 1966-1967), which our
study's experimental environment produces by requiring re-
spondents to focus closely on the ads. In the high-involve-
ment situation, the hierarchical model describes thinking
responses, which we view as more characteristic of sym-
pathy, as a precursor of feeling responses, which we view
as characteristic of empathy. Mick's subjective comprehen-
sion model (1992) also supports the processual ordering,
because it describes a more cognitive surface-level objective
comprehension of a message as necessary to the more af-
fective deeper-level subjective responses.
H2: Classical dramas will generate sympathy responses
as a precursor to generating empathy responses.
Hierarchical Ranking: Effects of Sympathy and Em-
pathy Responses on Ad Attitudes. Turning from hy-
pothesis 2 to hypothesis 3, we now explore the subsequent
effect of sympathy and empathy on attitude toward the ad
(A^d). It is clear from consumer advertising research that
empathy will have a positive effect on A^d, because empathic
sharing is by its nature a felt affective response. The ad-
vertising literature is consistent in reporting that affective
ad responses lead to positive A^d (e.g.. Brown, Homer, and
Inman 1998; Edell and Burke 1987; Holbrook and Batra
1987; Stayman and Aaker 1988). Moreover, findings also
yield evidence that sympathy responses have a positive re-
lationship with ad attitudes. Aaker and Williams (1998) find
569
FIGURE 1
FOUR-STAGE PATH TO AD ATTITUDE
Advertising Sympathy Empathy Ad Attitude
Drama Type
that in an American individualistic cultural context, the rec-
ognition of other-focused emotions has a significant positive
effect on A^^ (their term "empathy" refers to what we call
sympathy). Research by Stout and others further supports
the idea that emotion recognition enhances ad attitudes
(Stout, Homer, and Liu 1990; Stout and Leckenby 1986).
However, prior research has not treated the traditional
hierarchical ordering of sympathy and empathy, and our
study proposes the existence of a sequential relationship.
Recall that of the two emotions, empathy is consistently
viewed as stronger than sympathy in the elicitation of pleas-
ure. Empathy is conceived of as an end state of absorption
or immersion likely to engender more positive attitudes than
sympathy, a more self-aware preliminary state. A multidis-
ciplinary research tradition converges on this premise, with
empathy regarded as a more strongly positive response from
early aesthetic criticism to current consumer research on
advertising effects.
A necessarily brief summary of multidisciplinary confir-
mation begins with the aesthetic drama critic Langfeld
1967), who described sympathy ("I understand your pain")
as a weaker and more detached response than empathy ("I
share your pain"). Empathy enables viewers "to live in the
character" (Langfeld 1967, p. 137) and derive pleasure from
the performance. In later aesthetic film criticism (Aumont
et al. [1983] 1992; Metz 1974), the empathic response is
described as the ultimate experience in which the spectator
shares the emotions of characters and thus becomes the cen-
tral figure in the performance. Similarly, in rhetorical crit-
icism, Barthes's pleasure or enjoyment of the text is said to
result in a more positive attitude toward the ad (McQuarrie
and Mick 1996).
Communication research echoes the concept of an in-
volved and empathetic reader who experiences the mecha-
nism of transportation, defined as "immersion into a text"
(Green and Brock 2000, p. 702; see also Gerrig 1994).
Whereas the more cognitive response of elaboration "leads
to attitude change via logical consideration and evaluation
of arguments," the transportation process leads to persuasion
through reduced negative cognitive responding, realism of
experience, and strong affective responses (Green and Brock
2000, p. 702).
Findings in the general emotion and advertising literature
lend further support to the hierarchical concept. Stout and
colleagues (Stout et al. 1990; Stout and Leckenby 1986)
have found that even though recognized emotions (sym-
pathy) have a significant effect on positive attitudes to an
ad, personally felt emotions (empathy) have an even greater
infiuence. Findings in the more specific drama/empathy re-
search literature also corroborate the sympathy/empathy hi-
570
erarchy, with empathy presumed to be the stronger response
to advertising dramas (Deighton et al. 1989). The reasoning
is that higher empathy is likely to drive more positive ad
attitudes, because when viewers are absorbed or immersed
in a dramatic ad, they are more inclined to develop positive
attitudes toward the ad that encouraged this response. In
fact. Boiler and Olson (1991) have called empathic projec-
tion onto advertising characters the heart of the dramatic ad
persuasion process.
In light of this multidisciplinary convergence, we propose
that responses in high-involvement situations will move
from sympathy to empathy in a process that elicits positive
A^j. Thus, we move forward from hypothesis 2, in which
the assumption of sequentiality was treated, to hypothesis
3, in which the infiuence on A^d is treated. Hypothesis 3
draws from the same multidisciplinary theoretical base to
propose that the response process in which sympathy re-
sponses fiow through empathy responses leads to positive
effects on A^^.
H3: Sympathy ad responses will infiuence ad attitudes
via empathy ad responses.
Effect on A^^. Hypothesis 4 combines hypotheses 2 and
3 to propose a four-stage path to positive A^d in which the
classical drama ad form will have a positive effect on sym-
pathy responses, which in tum will have a positive effect
on empathy responses, which in tum will have a positive
effect on ad attitudes, as shown in figure 1.
SCALE DEVELOPMENT
Pretests
The introduction of sympathy and empathy into consumer
research requires measurement instruments for both con-
structs, necessitating the development of two new scales to
test the hypotheses. Since prior research measured empathy
alone on a single scale (Deighton et al. 1988), we needed
two unique scales to measure sympathy and empathy as
separate responses to advertisements. The scales are called
Ad Response Sympathy (ARS) and Ad Response Enipathy
(ARE; see table 2).
A review of sympathy and empathy scales used in psy-
chological research (Davis 1983; Mehrabian and Epstein
1972) and consumer behavior research (Boiler et al. 1989)
yielded 20 items likely to refiect the degree to which con-
sumers experience empathy and sympathy while watching
a commercial. To construct the most parsimonious item set,
we conducted two pretests in which 147 participants were
exposed to six different television ads and responses were
measured after each exposure. Based on a series of factor
analyses, LISREL analyses, and ANOVA analyses, 10 ad
response items (five sympathy, five empathy) were selected
for the ARS and ARE scales.
Next, we present two experiments that test the scales for
unidimensionality, reliability, and empirical distinctiveness.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
and measure the effects of classical and vignette television
commercials on viewers' empathy and sympathy responses.
In each experiment, participants watched a different set of
classical and vignette drama advertisements and recorded
their sympathy, empathy, and attitude responses after each
ad.
EXPERIMENT 1
Table 3 presents the eight television ads used in experi-
ment 1. The advertisements were selected by the researchers
from locally recorded television ads in 1998 and 1999 and
from Clio-award winning ads in 1997 and 1998. The authors
used Stem's differentiating criteria (1994) to categorize the
ads as classical or vignette dramas, including attributes such
as single versus multiple plots, chronological versus cyclical
progression, and central versus numerous unrelated char-
acters. To ensure that the stimuli had face validity and to
ascertain overall ad quality, a pretest was conducted in which
22 undergraduate participants were asked to evaluate the
stimulus ads.
Participants' evaluations confirm the categorization
scheme, with the four classical drama ads rated as having
significantly more classical attributes (measured with three
seven-point scales: the ad told a story; the ad had a begin-
ning, middle, and end; and the ad showed the personal evo-
lution of one or more characters, a = .79; M^^^^^-^^^^ =
5.77, M,i^„„„ = 4.02, F(l,151) = 113.87, p < .001) and
the four vignette ads rated as having significanUy more vi-
gnette attributes (measured with three seven-point scales:
many unrelated scenes, many different characters, and no
chronological order, a ^ .64; M,ig„„„ = 4.82, M,,,,,;,,, =
2.50, F(l, 151) = 223.56, p < .001). Both ad types are con-
sidered to be high quality, with the vignette dramas some-
what higher than the classical dramas (three seven-point
scales: professional, high quality, and realistic, a = .75;
M.i,„„„ = 5.58, M,,,,,,,,, = 5.45, F(l,151) = 9.15, p<
.01). Thus, the set of eight stimulus ads has face validity as
clear exemplars of classical and vignette dramas.
Method
A total of 115 undergraduate students at a large, public
southwestern university participated in a one-hour experi-
mental task as part of a requirement for the introductory
marketing course. Before viewing any ads, the participants
completed a questionnaire about prior attitudes toward prod-
ucts and brands (Prior A,,) shown in the ad stimulus set (plus
filler brands). The participants then viewed the eight ads
(table 3) in two randomly assigned orders. After viewing
each ad, participants rated A^j and the degree of sympathy
and empathy evoked by each advertisement. Half of the
participants filled out sympathy/empathy responses first and
ad attitudes second, and the other half did the reverse.
Variables. Ad attitudes were measured by three seven-
point scale items anchored by very favorable/very unfavor-
able, very negative/very positive, and very bad/very good
SYMPATHY AND EMPATHY DRAMA AD RESPONSES 571

TABLE 2

AD RESPONSE SYMPATHY (ARS) AND AD RESPONSE EMPATHY (ARE) SCALE ITEMS AND
AVERAGE STANDARDIZED FACTOR LOADINGS

Experiment 1 Experiment 2

ARS items:
1. Based on what was iiappening in
tiie commercial, I understood what
the characters were feeiing. .99 .91
2. Based on what was happening in
the commercial, I understood what
was bothering the characters. .95 .99
3. While watching the ad, I tried to
understand the events as they
occurred. .61 .97
4. While watching the ad, I tried to
understand the characters'
motivation. .61 .96
5. i was abie to recognize the prob-
lems that the characters in the ad
had. .92 .94
ARE items:
1. Whiie watching the ad, I experi-
enced feeling as if the events were
realiy happening to me. .93 .63
2. Whiie watching the ad, I feit as
though I were one of the
characters. .95 .88
3. Whiie watching the ad, I felt as
though the events in the ad were
happening to me. .96 .89
4. Whiie watching the commercial, I
experienced many of the same
feeiings that the characters
portrayed. .81 .77
5. While watching the commercial, I
feit as if the characters' feelings
were my own. .88 .93
NOTE.—The following instructions were used for these statements: "For the television commercial you just saw,
please rate how descriptive each of the following statements is of how you personally reacted to this ad," measured
on a seven-point scale anchored by Not at all descriptive/Very descriptive.

(a = .95). Participants' sympathy and empathy responses to
the ads were measured by the straight average of the five-
item, seven-point scales developed above (OARS = -88 and
a^RE = -95; table 2).
Covariates. Participants' prior attitudes toward the ad-
vertised products and brands were measured using a single
five-point scale anchored by very favorable/very unfavor-
able. Ad order and questionnaire order are also included as
covariates in the ANOVA models.
Results
Scale Verification. Analysis of the 10 ad response
items shows that ARS and ARE are unidimensional, re-
liable, and empirically distinct. Confirmatory factor anal-
ysis provides evidence of construct validity. The uncon-
strained LISREL model, with eight groups representing
each of the eight stimulus ads (and parameter estimates
free to vary except the factor structure), fits according to
three of the four most common fit indices (GEI = .91,
CEI = .97, and RMSEA = .08), indicating that the factor
structure of the scales is robust across the eight ads. (The
chi-square statistic is significant [x^(240) = 484.68, p <
.001], which is not unusual given this test statistic's sen-
sitivity to sample size.) The average standardized factor
loadings are given in table 2 (all f's > 3.73).
To provide evidence of discriminant validity between the
two constructs, we ran a LISREL model constraining the
two scales to be perfectly correlated. The fit of the model
constraining the sympathy and empathy constructs' corre-
lation to be 1.0 is significantly worse than the unconstrained
model (x^(8) difference = 204.50, p < .001). Comparing
the average variance extracted estimates for sympathy and
empathy to the square of the latent construct intercorrelation
results in every pair of constructs passing this test, indicating
that sympathy and empathy are empirically distinct. The two
combined measures used in subsequent analyses are signif-
icantly but moderately correlated (r = .50, p< .001). Ei-
nally, Cronbach alphas for the two scales indicate they have
solid internal consistency (a,y^p,,hy = .88, Oempathy = -95).
 572
Hypotheses lA and IB. The prediction that classical
dramas will evoke more sympathy (hypothesis 1 A) and more
empathy (hypothesis IB) than vignette dramas is supported.
Results are assessed by a within-subject ANOVA model,
including the between-subjects covariates (ad and question-
naire order), a subject class variable. Prior A^ covariate, a
dummy variable for the advertised brand (nested in ad type),
and the dichotomous ad type variable (classical drama vs.
vignette drama). We find that classical dramas evoke more
ad response sympathy than vignettes (M,,,,,,^^, = 5.26,
^vigneue = 3.96, f ( l , 798) = 301.78, p < .001, w' = 0.57),
and they also evoke more ad response empathy
(A^ciassicai = 3.13, M,;^^,,^ = 2.65, F(l,798) = 36.88, p<
.001, w^ = 0.14). In addition, for both ad types, the sym-
pathy response is significantly higher than the empathy re-
sponse (?„,,„„„= 18.42, p < . 0 0 1 , f,,a,,ica, = 27.36, p<
.001). Thus, classical drama ads evoke more sympathy and
empathy responses, whereas vignettes evoke less of both,
despite the pretest evaluation of the vignette ads as higher
quality.
Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 predicts that sympathy re-
sponses will precede empathy responses to advertising dra-
mas (i.e., an indirect path from ad type to sympathy to
empathy). We test this assertion with mediation tests con-
ducted in LISREL, comparing the sequential model in figure
1 to a model with an additional direct path from ad type to
empathy.' The model shown in figure 1 is supported by two
of four common goodness of fit measures (GFI = .97,
CFI = .94), but not by two others (RMSEA = .15,
X^(3) = 52.99, p < .001). However, all three relationships
in the model are positive and significant (marginal in the
case of ad type on ARS): ad type on ARS, x = -45, t =
5.24 ip < .06); ARS on ARE, 0 = .72, t = 22.46 (p <
.05); ARE on A^,, 0 = .53, t = 21.36 (p < .05).
The model that includes a direct path from dramatic
ad type to empathy fits better than the model with only
an indirect path from ad type to sympathy to empathy,
based on the chi-square difference test and CFI score, al-
though it does not have a better GFI or RMSEA score
(x'(l) difference = 8.55, p < .01, CFI = .95, GFI = .87,
RMSEA = .16). The direct effect of ad type on empathy
found in hypothesis 1 (0 = .10) remains significant in
the model that includes sympathy (ad type on ARE: j3 =
- . 2 3 , t — 2.93, p< .01), however the indirect path from
ad type to sympathy to empathy is significant (Z = 4.16,
p < .001; Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger 1998), providing some
support for hypothesis 2.^
Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3 asserts that sympathy ad
responses will infiuence A^^ by way of empathy responses
(i.e., an indirect path from sympathy to empathy to A^^).
'The four steps shown in fig. 1 are included in all the models that test
mediation to avoid model saturation in the models that include both direct
and indirect effects.
^The LISREL mediation results presented for hypothesis 2 and hypoth-
esis 3 in both experiments have all been replicated using the four-step
regression analysis approach recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986).
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
FIGURE 2
MODEL SUPPORTED BY EXPERIMENTS 1 AND 2
EXPERIMENT 1
Ad Type Sympathy Empathy Ad AtUtude
.45 .72 .40
OFI = .99, CFI = ,94. RMSEA = .07, x\ = 8.60 (p < .01)
EXPERIMENT 2
.23
Ad Type Sympathy Empathy Ad AtUtude
.92 .72 .40
GFI = 1.0, CFI = 1.0, RMSEA = .04, x\ = 4.22 (p > .10)
We again use LISREL mediation tests, in this case com-
paring the model in figure 1 to a model with an additional
direct path from ad response sympathy to ad attitudes (see
fig. 2). We find that allowing the additional path significantly
improves the model fit (x(l) difference = 44.39, p<
.001, GFI = .99, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .07). The direct
effect of ARS on A^j in a model that does not include
empathy ((3 = .53, t = 17.37, p < .001) is also significant
in the model that includes empathy (j3 = .24, t = 6.76,
p< .001). However, the indirect effect of ARS on A^^, is
also significant in the latter model (Z = 4.56, p < .001),
providing evidence that the effect of sympathy on A^d is
partially mediated by empathy.
Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 combines hypotheses 2 and
3 into one direct effects model incorporating all four stages
shown in figure 1. We have tested this hypothesis in hy-
pothesis 2 and hypothesis 3 above. As shown in figure 2,
the best-fitting model is the one that emerges from hypoth-
esis 3, which includes a significant direct path from sym-
pathy to A^d. Thus, hypothesis 4 is partially supported in
that the indirect effect of ad type on sympathy on empathy
on A^d is significant (;8 = .24, Z = 5.01,p< .001; see table
4). Furthermore, comparing the model in figure 2 to a model
where sympathy and empathy are not related reinforces the
superiority of the figure 2 model (x^(2) = 394.07, p<
.001, GFI = .82, CFI = .47, RMSEA = .47; AIC =
323.22 vs. AIC model in fig. 2 = 24.55). Table 4 sum-
marizes the direct and indirect effects of the model in figure
2.
Discussion of Results
This study empirically demonstrates that sympathy and
empathy make separate contributions to emotional responses
SYMPATHY AND EMPATHY DRAMA AD RESPONSES 573

TABLE 3 (n = 239), or they do not respond at all on these dimensions

(n = 83). However, it appears that in very few instances
STIMULUS ADVERTISEMENTS FOR EXPERIMENT 1
will individuals experience high levels of empathy without
also experiencing high levels of sympathy (n — 5, with the
Brand Description of the ad Ad type
lowest sympathy score quite high at 3.4 and an average of
Kodak film Daddy's little girl gets Classical drama
3.7).
married, snapshots We find partial support for hypothesis 3 and hypothesis
of their past life 4 in that we find both an indirect effect of sympathy re-
together sponses on A^d, working sequentially through empathy re-
One-Step e.p.t. preg- Couple unsuccessful in Classical drama sponses, and also a direct effect, which may be a function
nancy tests attempt to get
pregnant of a number of factors, including cognitions arising from
Prudential's Living Heart transplant recipi- Classical drama the experience of sympathy and differences in the degree
Needs Benefit ent's life story to which viewers experience empathy responses to a par-
Weyerhaueser (en- After a first little girl re- Classical drama ticular advertising drama. We discuss the direct effect of
dorsing recycling) jects him, boy recy-
cles love note to
sympathy responses on A^d in greater detail in the dis-
second little girl cussion.
Apple computers Scenes of geniuses Vignette drama One limitation in this experiment is the dominance of
and famous individu- poignant and warm ads in the stimulus set to the exclusion
als who were consid- of other types such as funny ones. However, since many
ered independent
thinkers advertisements are designed to be funny as well as to evoke
Nike shoes Scenes of many TV Vignette drama positive feelings, we decided to replicate the experiment
viewers watching Mi- using another stimulus set that included drama ads with
chael Jordan dunk- humorous appeals. Thus, experiment 2 examines sympathy
ing in slow motion
Scenes of volunteers Vignette drama
and empathy responses to a wider array of advertising ex-
United Way
with recipients of aid, ecutions.
message of thank
you
Volvo automobiles Scenes of individuals Vignette drama EXPERIMENT 2
who believe Volvo
saved their lives This study uses a new set of eight advertisements that
include humor appeals and upbeat music as well as a new
group of participants to examine the effects of classical and
to advertising. Support for hypothesis 1 indicates that clas- vignette television commercials on sympathy and empathy
sical drama ads are better at eliciting both sympathy and responses.
empathy responses, compared to vignette ads, a finding con-
trary to Stem's prediction (1994), and suggests that vignettes Stimuli
may elicit responses on dimensions not measured in the
experiment, such as role projection, a state that requires the Table 5 describes the eight new television ads selected from
cognitive skills of role taking and perspective taking (Strayer the same ad database used in experiment 1. These ads were
1987). Additionally, hypothesis 1 results indicate that sym- classified by the authors as being either classical or vignette
pathy appears to be the "easier" emotional response to evoke dramas. We followed the same pretest procedure, using the
in an advertising context, which seems reasonable insofar same measures with a similar subject pool to ensure that the
as complete absorption in a 60-second advertisement (re- stimuli had face validity and to ascertain overall ad quality.
quired by empathy) may be more difficult to evoke than Thirty-three undergraduate participants rated the four classi-
recognition of the emotions (sympathy). cal ads as having significantly more classical attributes than
Findings for hypothesis 2 indicate that there is an indirect the four vignette ads (a = .87; A/,,^,,i,^, - 5.34, M,,^^^,, =
effect of dramatic ad type on empathy responses through 4.23, F(l,228) = 33.41, p < .001), and the four vignette
sympathy responses. The classical drama's chronologically ads as having more vignette attributes (a = .68; M^^^^^,,^ =
organized plot enables viewers to recognize the feelings of 3.41, M,,,,,i,,, = 2.84, F(l,228) = 17.33, p < .001). We
central characters (sympathy) as well as to share them (em- found a marginal difference in the quality of the ad types,
pathy), which lends support to the idea that classical drama with vignettes again slightly higher (a = .78; M^ign^K =
ads evoke empathy by way of sympathy. The pattem of 5.24, Af,,,,,i,^, = 5.04, F(l, 228) = 2.83,p < .10). Thus, the
results that emerges from performing midpoint splits on the ads were rated as high quality and were shown to have face
seven-point ARS and ARE scales confirms the sequential validity as clear exemplars of classical and vignette dramas.
process proposed by hypothesis 2. We find that, of 460 In addition, averaging across all participants and all ads,
observations (115 participants across four classical drama the new set of advertisements evoked significantly more
ads), ad viewers respond in some instances with high levels upbeat feelings than the first set (A/^pteat filings, experiment i =
of sympathy and empathy (n = 133), while in other in- 2.38, M^,,,^, ,,,,„,,, ^p,Hn,em 2 = 2.70, t = 4.82, p<.OOl).
stances, they respond sympathetically but not empathetically The new set also evoked significantly lower warm
574
TABLE 4
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF MODEL SHOWN IN FIGURE 2
Experiment 1
Standardized
Hypothesized relationship estimate
Ad type -• Sympathy .45
Sympathy -• Empathy .72
Sympathy -i- A ^ .24
Empathy -• A^^ .40
Ad Type -• Sympathy -• Empathy .33
Sympathy -> Empathy -• A^^ .29
Ad Type -• Sympathy -• Empathy .24
***p < .001
feelings than the first set (M^^.^ f^^^^gj experiment l = 2.94,
^warm feelings, experiment 2 = 2.78, f = " 2 . 4 0 , ^ < .05), nOt SUr-
prising in that humor and upbeat appeals are less likely to
evoke warmth than poignant appeals (using five-point scales
based on Goodstein, Edell, and Moore [1990]).
Method
Following the same method used in experiment 1, 92
undergraduate students from the same university partici-
pated in a one-hour experimental task as part of a require-
ment for the introductory marketing course. Before viewing
any ads, the participants completed a questionnaire about
prior attitudes toward products and brands shown in the ad
stimulus set (plus filler brands). The participants then viewed
the eight ads (table 5) and, after viewing each ad, rated their
feelings responses, ad attitudes, and the degree of sympathy
and empathy evoked by each advertisement.
Variables. As in experiment 1, participants' ad re-
sponses were measured by the same scales: ARS (a = .89),
ARE (a = .96; table 2), and A^d (three items, a = .96).
Covariates. Prior attitudes toward the advertised prod-
ucts and brands were measured using a single five-point
brand attitude scale anchored by very favorable/very unfa-
vorable.
Results
Scale Verification. As in experiment 1, analysis of the
10 ad response items shows that ARS and ARE are uni-
dimensional, reliable, and empirically distinct. Confirmatory
factor analysis provides evidence of construct validity: the
unconstrained LISREL model, with eight groups represent-
ing each of the eight stimulus ads (and parameters free to
vary except the factor structure), fits according to two of
the four most common fit indices (GFI = .92, CFI = .94).
(The chi-square statistic is significant [x^(240) = 765.17,
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Experiment 2
Standardized
Z-value estimate Z-value
5.24" .92 11.20"*
22.46" .72 22.06***
6.76" .23 6.29"*
12.77" .40 12.99*"
5.10" .67 9.99***
11.10" .29 11.19*"
5.01" .48 9.32***
p < .001] due to sample size, and the RMSEA = .13.)' The
average standardized factor loadings are given in table 2
(all f's > 7.77).
We ran a LISREL model constraining the two scales to
be perfectly correlated to provide evidence of discriminant
validity between ARS and ARE. The fit of the model where
the correlation between sympathy and empathy is con-
strained to be 1.0 is significantly worse than the correspond-
ing unconstrained model (x^(8)difference = 344.02, p <
.001). Comparing the average variance extracted estimates
for sympathy and empathy to the square of the latent con-
struct intercorrelation results in every pair of constructs
passing this test except one, indicating that sympathy and
empathy are empirically distinct. The two combined ARS
and ARE measures are significantly but moderately corre-
lated (r = .59,p< .001). Finally, Cronbach alphas for the
two scales indicate they have solid internal consistency
("sympathy = -90, Oempathy = -96).
Hypotheses lA and IB. These hypotheses are as-
sessed by a within-subject ANOVA model, including the
subject class variable. Prior Ag covariate, a dummy vari-
able for the advertised brand (nested in ad type), and the
ad type variable (classical drama vs. vignette drama).
The results support the prediction that classical dramas
will evoke more sympathy (hypothesis lA) and more em-
pathy (hypothesis IB) than vignette dramas (ARS:
M,,,,3ica, = 4.83, M„,^„,„, = 3.91, F(l,635) = 126.44, p <
.001, co^ = 0.41; ARE: M,,,,,,,,, = 3.82, M.,,„,,, = 3.28,
F(l,635) = 26.89, p < . 0 0 1 , CJ' = 0.12), replicating our
findings from experiment 1. In addition, for both ad types,
the sympathy response is significantly higher than the em-
pathy response (/,,^„„„ = 6.32, p<.00\, ?„„,,,,„ = 7.58,
p < .001). Experiment 2 confirms that classical drama ads
evoke more sympathy and empathy responses than vignette
drama ads.
Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 predicts that classical dra-
mas will generate sympathy as a precursor to empathy. We
'The poor RMSEA score is likely due to the fact that ARS and ARE
are related constructs, therefore, the nontarget loadings are not strictly zero
as specified in the model.
SYMPATHY AND EMPATHY DRAMA AD RESPONSES 575

TABLE 5 path, in this case from sympathy to ad attitudes (see fig. 2).
We find that the inclusion of the direct path significantly
STIMULUS ADVERTISEMENTS FOR EXPERIMENT 2
improves the model fit (x^(l) difference = 38.55, p <
.001, GFI = 1.0, CFI = 1.0, RMSEA = .04). The direct
Brand Description of the ad Ad type
effect of sympathy on A^a in a model that does not include
Classical drama
empathy (j3 = .52, r = 16.81, p < .001) is also significant
Polaroid Man changes mind
about coming home in the model that includes empathy (J3 = .23, t - 6.29,
for lunch when he p < .001), however, the indirect effect is also significant
finds photo of wife in (Z = 4.56, p < .001). Thus, consistent with our experiment
his briefcase 1 findings, the effect of sympathy on A^d is partially me-
e-toys Man buys firefly cage Classical drama
on-line after playing
diated by empathy.
in the yard with his
son
Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 combines hypotheses 2 and
Levi's jeans Man and woman make Classical drama 3 into one direct effects model incorporating all four stages
eye contact in the el- shown in figure 1. We tested this hypothesis in hypothesis
evator, imagine their 2 and hypothesis 3 above, where we found that the best-
married life together
Lab researcher reports Classical drama
fitting model includes a significant direct path from sym-
Diet Pepsi
chimpanzee study a pathy to A^d, as shown in figure 2. Hypothesis 4 is partially
failure, while chimps supported by the significant indirect effect of ad type to
buy her a Diet Pepsi sympathy to empathy to AAd (|8 = .48, Z = 9.32, p <
Cisco Systems International children Vignette drama .001; see table 4). Furthermore, comparing this model to a
ask "Are you ready?"
for the internet model where sympathy and empathy are not related rein-
Nationsbank Scenes of Atlanta resi- Vignette drama forces the superiority of the fig. 2 model (x^(2) = 349.80,
dents on the day the p < .001, GFI = .84, CFI = .60, RMSEA = .43; AIC =
1996 Olympic site 295.35 vs. AIC model in fig. 2 = 20.21).
was announced
Dr. Pepper Scenes of a "salsa" Vignette drama
party featuring danc- Discussion of Experiment 2 Results
ing and Dr. Pepper
Midas Scenes of individuals Vignette drama Experiment 2 empirically replicates the findings of ex-
enjoying their (well-
periment 1. It reaffirms support for hypothesis 1 and extends
maintained) cars
the applicability of the ad response scales (ARS and ARE)
to a wider range of ad types. It also provides support for
hypothesis 2: sympathy responses mediate the effect of dra-
use LISREL mediation tests fo compare the sequential model
matic ad type on empathy responses. Midpoint splits on the
in figure 1 to a model with an additional direct path from
seven-point ARS and ARE scales across 372 observations
ad type to empathy. The model shown in figure 1 receives
(93 participants each viewed four classical drama ads) reveal
support according to two of four common goodness of fit
that in 148 instances, participants reported high sympathy
measures (GFI = .97, CFI = .95; however, RMSEA =
and high empathy; in 97 instances, low levels of both sym-
.13, •)^^(3) = 42.77, p < .001). All three relationships in this
pathy and empathy; and in 107 instances, high sympathy
model are significant and positive (ad type on ARS: j3 =
with low empathy. In only 20 cases did participants report
.92, t = 11.20, p<.05; ARS on ARE: 0 = .72, t =
high empathy with low sympathy (and of these, the lowest
22.06, p < .05; ARE on A^^: 0 = .53, t = 21.26, p < .05).
sympathy score was 2.4, with a mean of 3.5), supporting
The fit of the model that includes a direct path from ad
our sequential model that predicts that empathy should not
type to empathy is marginally superior to the sequential
occur without sympathy.
model in terms of the chi-square difference test and CFI
measure (x'(l) difference = 2.94, p<.lO, CFI = .96), Support is found for hypotheses 3 and 4, as we find ad
however, it is not better on the two other standard goodness response empathy partially mediates the effect of ad re-
of fit measures (GFI = .97, RMSEA = .16). Further, the sponse sympathy on ad attitudes. However, as in the case
significant direct effect of ad type on empathy found in of experiment 1, there exists a significant direct effect of ad
hypothesis 1 (|8 = .54) is only marginally significant in the response sympathy on A^j, in addition to the hypothesized
model that includes sympathy (fi = - . 1 5 , t = 1.72, p< indirect effect through ad response empathy. In sum, our
.10), while the indirect path is significant (Z = 8.73, p< overall pattem of results supports the relationships predicted
.001). Therefore, hypothesis 2 is supported: the effect of ad by the four-stage, sequential model, with the addition of the
type on empathy is mediated by sympathy. direct effect of ad response sympathy on ad attitudes.

Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3 proposes an indirect effect DISCUSSION

of sympathy responses on ad attitudes via empathy re-
sponses. We again use LISREL mediation tests to compare This study contributes to an expansion of the research
the model in figure 1 to a model with an additional direct domain of advertising responses by including both sympathy
 576
and empathy in a comprehensive system of emotional re-
sponses. Results indicate that the restored linkage can
broaden consumer research about drama effects by allowing
for the extension and modification of extant drama adver-
tising theory. The development and testing of two new scales
(ARS and ARE) reveal a cohesive pattem of results across
two experiments and 16 drama advertisements, which sub-
stantiates the differentiation between sympathy and empathy
and the influence of each as emotional responses to classical
advertising dramas. We consistently find that classical dra-
mas are better than vignettes at generating both sympathy
and empathy responses, which confirms the assumption that
it takes well-developed characters and a linear plot to evoke
sympathy and empathy. We also find an indirect effect in
that classical dramas work through sympathy responses as
a precursor to empathy responses. These findings reveal a
consistent pattem of results, with sympathy the first and
more easily achieved emotional response and empathy the
later response of some ad viewers for some ad dramas.
In addition, interesting findings not predicted in our hy-
potheses are the ones that show a direct as well as an indirect
effect of sympathy in the empathic process. Recall that in
the indirect route, sympathy responses lead to empathy re-
sponses that in turn lead to positive ad attitudes. This process
supports the idea that both sympathy and empathy are stages
that an individual goes through in experiencing drama (De-
lacroix [1927] 1953), progressing from early recognition of
portrayed emotions to later absorption in sharing those emo-
tions (Strayer 1987). However, our results indicate that there
is also a direct route in which sympathy responses alone
enhance ad attitudes.
The direct route seems to exemplify the idea that some-
thing is better than nothing; that is, even though an empathy
response is preferred, a sympathy response alone also en-
hances A^d. In empathy research, even though sympathy is
not mentioned by name, Deighton and Hoch (1993) point
out that even quite dispassionate consumers can understand
the intention and meaning of emotional responses com-
municated by displays of feelings (our sympathy). That is,
whereas empathy with ads is an emotional response on the
part of some consumers (Deighton and Hoch 1993, p. 278),
sympathy is also an emotional response on the part of others
who are not empathically moved by a particular ad. Wells's
research (1989) reiterates this conjecture, pointing out that
structured classical dramas have tiie capacity to draw con-
sumers into comprehending and/or vicariously participating
in a commercial. Advertising researchers (Aaker and Wil-
liams 1998; Stout et al. 1990) also find that recognized
emotions (our sympathy) have a significant effect on positive
attitudes to an ad. In the context of the poignant (experiment
1) and upbeat (experiment 2) feelings displayed by the char-
acters in our stimulus ads, the recognition of the actors'
positive feelings should generate a positive response that
directly enhances A^j
We propose that the positive effect of sympathy on ad
attitudes is a consequence of several mechanisms. First, the
sympathetic experience may directly affect A^d, for recog-
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
nition of the emotions of the characters in the ad may in-
fluence viewers' cognitive responses to the ad, something
that we did not measure in our studies. For example, a
sympathetic ad viewer may begin to think about whether a
character's goals and motives are the same as his or her
own, and this self-awareness may generate positive A^d on
its own by eliciting role taking or projection (Strayer 1987).
In the context of studying feelings responses to advertising,
Edell and Burke find that advertisements affect cognitive ad
judgments directly (1987) and indirectly through feelings
responses (Burke and Edell 1989). An ad viewer experi-
encing sympathy may engage in more positive adjudgments
and fewer negative ones, such as source derogations and
counterarguments (Wright 1973), resulting in net positive
ad attitudes.
Second, there may exist individual response differences
in the sympathy/empathy sequence. That is, if the emotions
and attitudes are unfolding in a sequential or logical causal
chain progression as figure 1 shows, some viewers may not
reach the empathy stage for a particular classical drama ad.
When an empathy response is not achieved, sympathy alone
may have a positive effect on A^d. Although sympathy may
be less emotionally involving than empathy, it is, nonethe-
less, an emotional response to a drama advertisement. This
explanation is speculative insofar as the covariance matrices
used in the LISREL analysis of the empathic path to per-
suasion collapse the data across ads and individuals: they
cannot show whether or not those instances where the ad
viewer does not reach the empathy stage of the sequential
process are the same instances where sympathy has a direct
effect on ad attitudes.
Limitations
Possible limitations to our research conclusions might in-
clude the following. First, as is true of any cross-sectional
design, the experiments reported do not provide as strong
evidence of the direction of causality between sympathy,
empathy, and A^^ as we might have liked. We are certainly
able to say that our proposed sequence is better supported
by the data than alternative models in which empathy pre-
cedes sympathy, but were the experiments to unfold over
time, for example, it would bolster our claim toward cau-
sality. Second, the experimental setting might be character-
ized as unrealistic in that participants are forced to pay at-
tention to ads that they might otherwise zap or screen out.
However, in our defense, even though no laboratory setting
represents a real-life viewing situation, consumer behavior
researchers have long used experiments to study theoretical
concepts without contamination by noise inevitably found
in an externally valid real-world setting. A related limitation
is that the stimulus sets include only award-winning ads,
assumed to be "good," which excludes possible altemative
responses to "bad" or "not-so-good" ads. Thus, the findings
cannot be generalized to ads that may evoke neither empathy
nor sympathy, or to alternative consumer reactions such as
nonresponsiveness. Finally, our within-subjects design may
have created a common method variance problem attrib-
SYMPATHY AND EMPATHY DRAMA AD RESPONSES
utable to the experimental condition, in which all of the data
was obtained from the same subjects at the same time, using
the same questionnaire items repeatedly. Although we can-
not rule out this problem entirely, the LISREL results re-
ported in this article have been replicated using more tra-
ditional repeated measures ANOVA analyses.
Directions for Future Research
The provocative finding of a direct effect of sympathy in
the empathic sequence requires additional investigation. One
possible explanation is that this direct effect may stem from
the fact that some individuals do not reach the empathy
stage, only reaching the sympathy stage, which in itself
directly affects A^j. This explanation encourages further
study of individual differences in empathic responsiveness,
with some individuals tending to respond more empatheti-
cally to media representations in general and, thus, to ad-
vertisements in particular. Whereas some people easily lose
themselves in movies, others remain detached no matter
what is on the screen. It seems likely that only those indi-
viduals who are predisposed to be empathic responders will
proceed along the sympathy/empathy path in our sequential
model. However, so little is known about the relationship
between individual differences in media and advertising re-
sponses that further research is essential.
Another untouched area for future research is the ex-
amination of sympathy/empathy unresponsiveness: that is,
consumers' failure to respond with either sympathy or em-
pathy to dramatic advertising appeals. Based on the premise
that both sympathy and empathy are desired by advertisers,
it seems reasonable to assume that negative responses are
undesirable. Further study is required to examine the neg-
ative states of nonempathy and antipathy and to extend the
postulation of linked constructs to unresponsiveness to ads.
In this regard, just as sympathy and empathy differ from
each other, so too, we predict, would their oppositional
states. Nonempathy, the opposite of empathy, is defined as
a lack of engagement with a stimulus, and antipathy, the
opposite of sympathy, is defined as a hostile response to a
specific ad and/or to advertising in general. Future research
that measures the nature, degree, and power of avoidance
versus antipathy responses can increase understanding of
emotional responses or the lack thereof to advertisements
and attitudes toward them.
[Received December 1999. Revised August 2002. David
Gien Mick served as editor and John Deighton served as
associate editor for this article.]
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer L. and Patti Williams (1998), "Empathy versus
Pride: The Influence of Emotional Appeals across Cultures,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (December), 241-261.
Aumont, Jacques, Alain Bergala, Michel Marie, and Marc Vernet
([1983] 1992), Aesthetics of Film, trans, and revised Richard
Neupert, Austin: University of Texas Press.
577
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), "The Moderator-
Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Re-
search: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 (6),
1173-1182.
Boiler, Gregory W. (1990), "The Vicissitudes of Product Experi-
ence: 'Songs of Our Consuming Selves' in Drama Ads," in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, ed. Marvin E.
Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, and Richard W. Pollay, Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 621-626.
Boiler, Gregory W., Emin Babakus, and Jerry Olson (1989),
"Viewer Empathy in Response to Drama Ads: Development
of the VEDA Scale," Working Paper No. 402-89, Working
Series Collection, Fogleman College of Business and Eco-
nomics, Memphis State University, Memphis, TN 38152.
Boiler, Gregory W. and Jerry Olson (1991), "Experiencing Ad
Meanings: Crucial Aspects of Narrative/Drama Processing,"
in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, ed. Rebecca H.
Holman and Michael R. Solomon, Provo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research, 172-175.
Brown, Steven P., Pamela M. Homer, and J. Jeffrey Inman (1998),
"A Meta-Analysis of Relationships between Ad-Evoked Feel-
ings and Advertising Responses," Journal of Marketing Re-
search. 35 (February), 114-126.
Buber, Martin ([1937] 1970), / and Thou, trans. Walter Kaufmann,
New York: Scribner's.
Burke, Marian Chapman and Julie A. Edell (1989), "The Impact
of Feelings on Ad-Based Affect and Cognition," Journal of
Marketing Research, 26 (February), 69-83.
Davis, Mark H. (1983), "The Effects of Dispositional Empathy on
Emotional Reactions and Helping: A Multidimensional Ap-
proach," Journal of Personality, 51 (June), 167-184.
Deighton, John and Stephen J. Hoch (1993), "Teaching Emotion
with Drama Advertising," in Advertising Exposure, Memory,
and Choice, ed. Andrew A. Mitchell, Hiilsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 261-282.
Deighton, John, Daniel Romer, and Josh McQueen (1989), "Using
Drama to Persuade," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (De-
cember), 335-343.
Delacroix, Henri ([1927] 1953), "Varieties of Aesthetic Experi-
ence," in The Problems of Aesthetics, ed. Eliseo Vivas and
Murray Krieger, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
279-284.
Edell, Julie A. and Marian Chapman Burke (1987), "The Power
of Feelings in Understanding Advertising Effects," Journal
of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 421^33.
Eisenberg, Nancy and Paul A. Miller (1987), "Empathy, Sympathy,
and Altruism: Empirical and Conceptual Links," in Empathy
and Its Development, ed. Nancy Eisenberg and Janet Strayer,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 292-316.
Eisenberg, Nancy and Janet Strayer (1987), "Critical Issues in the
Study of Empathy," in Empathy and Its Development, ed.
Nancy Eisenberg and Janet Strayer, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 3-16.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson, Marian C. Moore, and Julie A. Edell
(forthcoming), "Fishing for Feelings: A Hook Helps !"yoMrna/
of Consumer Psychology.
Fergusson, Francis (1961), Aristotle's Poetics, trans. S. H. Butcher,
New York: Hill & Wang.
Gerrig, Richard J. (1994), "Narrative Thought?" Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 20 (6), 712-715.
Goodstein, Ronald C , Julie A. Edell, and Marian Chapman Moore
(1990), "When Are Feelings Generated? Assessing the Pres-
578
ence and Reliability of Feelings Based on Storyboards and
Animatics," in Emotion in Advertising: Theoretical and Prac-
tical Explorations, ed. Stuart J. Agres, Julie A. Edell, and
Tony M. Dubitsky, Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 175-193.
Green, Melanie C. and Timothy C. Brock (2000), "The Role of
Transportation in the Persuasiveness of Public Narratives,"
Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5),
701-721.
Holbrook, Morris B. and Rajeev Batra (1987), "Assessing the Role
of Emotions as Meidators of Consumer Responses to Ad-
vertising," Joumal of Consumer Research, 14 (December),
404^20.
Hume, David ([1739] 1968), A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. L.
Shelby-Bigge, London: Oxford University Press.
Kenny, David A., Deborah A. Kashy, and Niall Bolger (1998),
"Data Analysis in Social Psychology," in Handbook of Social
Psychology, ed. Daniel T Gilbert, Susan T Fiske, and Gardner
Lindzey, 233-265.
Krugman, Herbert E. (1966-1967), "The Measurement of Adver-
tising Involvement," Public Opinion Quarterly, 30 (Winter),
583-596.
Langfeld, Herbert Sidney ([1920] 1967), The Aesthetic Attitude,
Port Washington, NY: Kennikat.
Lavidge, Robert and Gary Steiner (1961), "A Model for Predictive
Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness," Joumal of Mar-
keting, 25 (October), 59-62.
Lipps, Theodor (1897), Raumasthetik und Geometrische-optische
Tauschungen (Aesthetics of space and geometric-illusions),
Leipzig: J. A. Barth.
(1903-1906a), Aesthetik: Psychologie des Schonen und
der Kunst (Aesthetics: The psychology of beauty and art),
Hamburg: L. Voss.
- ([1903-1906b] 1926), Psychological Studies, 2d ed., trans.
Herbert C. Sanborn, Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Mallgrave, Harry Francis and Eleftherios Ikonomou (1994), "In-
troduction," in Empathy, Form, and Space: Problems in
German Aesthetics, 1873-1893, ed. and trans. Harry Francis
Mallgrave and Eleftherios Ikonomou, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1-75.
McGuire, William J. (1978), "An Information-Processing Model
of Advertising Effectiveness," in Behavioral and Manage-
ment Science in Marketing, ed. Harry L Davis and Alvin J.
Silk, New York: Ronald, 156-180.
McQuarrie, Edward F. and David Glen Mick (1996), "Figures of
Rhetoric in Advertising Language," Joumal of Consumer Re-
search, 22 (March), 424- 438.
Mehrabian, Albert and N. Epstein (1972), "A Measure of Emo-
tional Empathy," Journal of Personality, 40 (September),
522-533.
Mercer, Philip (1972), Sympathy and Ethics: A Study of the Re-
lationship between Sympathy and Morality with Special Ref-
erence to Hume's Treatise, Oxford: Clarendon.
Metz, Christian (1974), Language and Cinema, trans. Donna Jean
Umiker-Sebeok, The Hague: Mouton.
Mick, David Glen (1987), "Toward a Semiotic of Advertising Story
Grammars," in Marketing and Semiotics: New Directions in
the Study of Signs for Sale, ed. Jean Umiker-Sebeok, Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 249-278.
(1992), "Levels of Subjective Comprehension in Adver-
tising Processing and Their Relations to Ad Perceptions, At-
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
titudes, and Memory," Joumal of Consumer Research, 18
(4), 411^24.
Morrison, Karl F. (1988), "I Am You": The Hermeneutics of Em-
pathy in Western Literature, Theology, and Art, Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ray, Michael L. (1973), Marketing Communications and the Hi-
erarchy of Effects, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science
Institute.
Shipley, Joseph Twaddell (1931), The Quest for Literature: A Sur-
vey of Literary Criticism and the Theories of the Literary
Forms, New York: R. R. Smith.
Shweder, Richard A. (1994), "'You're Not Sick: You're Just in
Love': Emotion as an Interpretive System," in The Nature of
Emotion: Fundamental Questions, ed. Paul Ekman and Rich-
ard J. Davidson, New York: Oxford University Press, 32-44.
Stayman, Douglas M. and David A. Aaker (1988), "Are All the
Effects of Ad-Induced Feelings Mediated by AA^?" Joumal
of Consumer Research, 15 (3), 368-374.
Stem, Barbara B. (1994), "Classical and Vignette Television Ad-
vertising Dramas: Structural Models, Formal Analysis, and
Consumer Effects," Joumal of Consumer Research, 20
(March), 601-615.
Stout, Patricia A., Pamela M. Homer, and Scott S. Liu (1990),
"Does What We See Influence How We Feel? Felt Emotions
versus Depicted Emotions in Television Commercials," in
Emotion in Advertising: Theoretical and Practical Explora-
tions, ed. Stuart J. Agres, Julie A. Edell, and Tony M. Dub-
itsky, New York: Quorum Books, 195-210.
Stout, Patricia A. and John D. Leckenby (1986), "Measuring Emo-
tional Response to Advertising," Joumal of Advertising, 15
(4), 35-42.
Strayer, Janet (1987), "Affective and Cognitive Perspectives on
Empathy," in Empathy and Its Development, ed. Nancy Ei-
senberg and Janet Strayer, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 218-244.
Titchener, Edward Bradford (1909a), Elementary Psychology of
the Thought Processes, New York: Macmillan.
(1909b), A Text Book of Psychology, New York: Macmillan.
Vischer, Robert ([1873] 1994), "On the Optical Sense of Form: A
Contribution to Aesthetics," in Empathy, Form, and Space:
Problems in German Aesthetics, 1873-1893, ed. and trans.
Harry Francis Mallgrave and Eleftherios Ikonomou, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 98-173.
Vivas, Eliseo and Murray Krieger, eds. (1953), "Section 5: The
Aesthetic Experience," in The Problems of Aesthetics, ed.
Eliseo Vivas and Murray Krieger, New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston, 277-279.
Wells, William D. (1989), "Lectures and Dramas," in Cognitive
and Affective Responses to Advertising, ed. Patricia Cafferata
and Alice M. Tybout, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books,
13-20.
Wispe, Lauren (1986), "The Distinction between Sympathy and
Empathy: To Call Forth a Concept, a Word Is Needed," Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (August),
314-321.
(1987), "History of the Concept of Empathy," in Empathy
and Its Development, ed. Nancy Eisenberg and Janet Strayer,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17-37.
Wright, Peter L. (1973), "The Cognitive Processes Mediating Ac-
ceptance of Advertising," Joumal of Marketing Research, 10
(Februrary), 53-62.