The Concept of Omoiyari (Altruistic Sensitivity) in Japanese Relational Communication

Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Hara The Concept of Omoiyari (Altruistic Sensitivity) in Japanese Relational Communication Kazuya Hara, Meikai University, Japan Abstract It is essential to explore Japanese concepts in Japanese languages as intellectual tools for future studies in Asia. In order to develop Asian theories of communication, therefore, Asian communication scholars ought to engage in this important task.
This paper presents such an attempt by conceptualizing the concept of omoiyari for a Japanese theory of relational communication. In social psychology, the Japanese concept of omoiyari has been examined in terms of altruism, sympathy, empathy, and prosocial behavior, and a variety of cognitive models of prosocial behavior arousal have been proposed. In the field of communication studies, however, the concept of omoiyari has not attracted much scholarly attention, although aspects of harmonius Japanese communication are well documented.
By synthesizing the relevant literature on omoiyari across disciplines, then, this paper formulates a definition of omoiyari for Japanese communication research, lays out its basic assumptions, and characterizes it in light of four major semantic areas of omoiyari: (1) prayer, (2) encouragement, (3) help, and (4) support. Introduction “Cast your bread upon the waters and it will return to you. ” –a saying reflecting omoiyari When Japanese people feel another’s kindness toward them and see someone’s warm-hearted feelings, thoughts, and behaviors, they appreciate that person’s omoiyari.

The primary meaning of omoiyari is “an individual’s sensitivity to imagine another’s feelings and personal affairs, including his or her circumstances” (Shinmura, 1991, p. 387, translated by Hara). Omoiyari has attracted non-Japanese scholars’ attention as one of the most important ideas in Japanese cultural value and communication (e. g. , Lebra, 1976; Travis, 1998; Wierzbicka, 1997). The word omoiyari is often seen on signs bearing a school motto and at police stations. In many surveys of public opinion, Japanese people have listed omoiyari as a key concept on which they put high value.
Although omoiyari -based behavior and activity are seen across cultures, Japanese people are the ones who put the highest value on omoiyari all over the world (Kikuchi, 1988; Akanuma, 2004). This humane omoiyari concept has been emphasized in moral education at schools in Japan as the guiding principle to communicate with others (Ito, 1998a; 1998b). In educational psychology in Japan, the importance of omoiyari has been emphasized with its developmental views of children (e. g. , Kikuchi, 1988).
Recent inhumane crimes such as ill-treatment bullying or indiscriminate murder on the street are caused by the lack of omoiyari, and the importance of omoiyari has undergone a reevaluation in terms of education in the schools (Kanno, 1988). Psychological aspects of omoiyari such as empathy and sympathy have been studied, 24 Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Hara and its behavior has been studied as prosocial behavior, altruistic behavior, and helping behavior in social psychology (e. . , Harada, 1991; Kikuchi, 1998; Matsui, 1991). Although the term “omoiyari behavior” is not generally used as a technical term in social psychology (Matsui, 1991), the titles of several studies on these concepts are comprehensively translated into Japanese using the word omoiyari (e. g. , Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989; Hoffman, 2001; Jones, 1993). Additionally, cultural psychologists Uchida and Kitayama (2001) developed a measurement scale of omoiyari from the viewpoint of sympathy.
In the field of communication studies, although aspects of harmonious communication have been well-researched, only a few studies have focused on omoiyari as an important factor of Japanese harmonious communication. For example, Donahue (1998) argues that omoiyari is a psychological factor in Japanese indirect communication. In health communication, Kakai (2002) argues that Japanese prefer ambiguity or not disclosing of cancer to their family members. Behind such indirect communication and style is the psychological and cultural background of omoiyari.
These studies refer to the study on Japanese empathy by anthropologist Lebra (1976) and her definition and observation of omoiyari. Although previous studies have contributed to pointing out the importance of omoiyari in Japanese mental culture and behavioral culture, there are three points to be further considered. First, many psychological studies based on Western concepts have not proposed clear conceptual definitions of omoiyari, so there is no consensus on its definition.
Second, studies on omoiyari in other fields have only argued one aspect of omoiyari with its case contexts; we might be able to explore multi-aspects of omoiyari, taking various communication contexts and levels into consideration. Third, negative aspects of omoiyari have not been referred to adequately in previous studies on omoiyari. For example, there are cases when omoiyari toward others might not be appreciated or accepted by others. In order to develop future studies on omoiyari in Japanese communication, this paper attempts to concisely conceptualize Japanese omoiyari across disciplines.
Additionally, the author believes that it is essential to explore Japanese concepts in Japanese languages as intellectual tools for future studies in Asia. In this paper, first, the author will review the relevant concepts in Western psychology which have been argued as omoiyari in Japan. Then, he will articulate Japanese omoiyari with its translation, definition, and major characteristics. Finally, using a diagram, he will propose four semantic areas of omoiyari, taking its communication levels and contexts into consideration.
Omoiyari and Its Relevant Concepts The idea of omoiyari has been argued from the standpoint of the concepts of altruism, sympathy, empathy and prosocial behavior. Although the causal developmental relationship among these concepts is controversial (e. g. , Eisenberg, 1986; Hoffman, 1982; Toi & Baston, 1982), each concept in itself has been regarded as one aspect of omoiyari in Japanese social psychology and communication studies. This means that these concepts are seen as elements of omoiyari, and conversely that omoiyari can be conceptualized with a combination of these concepts.
The foundation of omoiyari feelings can be covered with the concept of altruism. Altruism is other-oriented and self-sacrificial (Kerbs, 1975). According to Cohen (1978), altruism refers to an act or desire to offer something gratuitously to others when needed. Cohen indicates that there are three components of altruism: (a) giving, or the desire to do so; (b) empathy; and (c) the absence of any motives of reward from doing the altruistic behavior. 25 Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Hara Essentially, altruism lies in the motivation to help others and to aid others in their behavior.
As this conceptual definition shows, altruism is the source that produces more concrete omoiyari feelings and behavior. Based on altruism, omoiyari seems to comprise both sympathy and empathy (e. g. , Kikuchi, 1991, 1998; Matsui, 1991). Sympathy refers to a concern for another person, agreement with and consideration for the feelings of others, or compassion (DeVito, 1986). It is generally conceived as a reaction to particular contexts such as the sadness or disappointment of others. Another view is that sympathy refers to a feeling for another person, while empathy refers to actually feeling as that person does (DeVito, 1986).
Empathy in omoiyari is described in Bruneau’s (1995) definition as “‘feeling into’ another’s feelings with one’s own, vicariously, and attempting to achieve some I-thou congruence” (p. 87). Empathy implies understanding of others through imagining the situation of others (Travis, 1998). Psychological aspects of altruism, empathy, and sympathy are reflected in prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior generally refers to “voluntary actions that are intended to help or benefit another individual or group of individuals” (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989, p. 3).
Wispe (1972) suggests that prosocial behavior refers to behaviors that can be described as sympathetic, altruistic, charitable, and so on. Furthermore, prosocial behavior benefits others without anticipating external rewards, and is done under the conditions that it is done either for its own end, or as an act of restitution (Bar-Tal, 1976). Also, as Bar-Tal argues, prosocial behavior should not be carried out as a result of external threat, enforcement, or obligation, but should be due to an individual’s freedom to decide to act in a certain manner or not.
Reviewing altruism, empathy, sympathy, and prosocial behavior in human communication, on the basis of altruism, people seem to have feelings of either empathy or sympathy at the stage of intrapersonal communication. Additionally, in the context of communication activities with others, when such feelings are seen in behavior, the behavior is regarded as prosocial behavior. As the findings in Uchida and Kitayama’s (2001) survey indicate, omoiyari as sympathy had a positive relationship with emotional empathy and prosocial behavior. The combination f these concepts seems to help conceptualize aspects of omoiyari. However, since each concept cannot individually cover omoiyari in a comprehensive sense, we need a conceptual definition of omoiyari before applying these concepts to aspects of omoiyari. The Concept of Japanese Omoiyari In Japanese communication, it is often seen that people say “show omoiyari toward others” when a person does not do so. The word omoiyari is directed toward anybody of the same generation and status, or toward younger people with regard to both in-group and out-group members.
To say “have omoiyari” to elderly people, on the other hand, sounds arrogant, although the person is thinking “omoiyari” in his or her mind. In such a situation, it seems appropriate to use the word “itawari”(caring consideration with respect) instead, even though the person has the word “omoiyari” in his or her mind. In this section, the author attempts to propose an expedient translation of omoiyari into English which is comprehensible to both Japanese and non-Japanese people. Then, the author will define omoiyari in Japanese communication.
Translation of Omoiyari into English It is impossible to translate Japanese omoiyari into English with one word or phrase 26 Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Hara which is comprehensible to both Japanese and non-Japanese people. Even words such as compassion, consideration, thoughtfulness, mercy, and benevolence cover only one aspect of Japanese omoiyari. There seem to be two reasons for this difficulty. First, there are different views of omoiyari across cultures.
For example, Yamagishi (1995) argues that for Westerners, omoiyari is not “thoughtfulness” to others, which is occasionally perceived to be unnecessarily imposed by others depriving one’s own right to choose his/her own behavior. Easterners, on the other hand, believe that thoughtfulness-based omoiyari is essential to living a group-oriented life. Secondly, as Travis (1998) points out, English words such as “considerate” and “thoughtful,” which are related to omoiyari, do not involve the same kind of “intuitive” understanding. This intuitive way of communication is also cultivated as intuitive listening and empathic understanding in
Japanese ways of communication (Barnland, 1975). As for a neutral and comprehensible translation term, Yamagishi (1995) points out that “sensitivity” can represent the feelings of omoiyari that are common to Westerners and Easterners and which do not have the connotation of imposing one’s thought on others. Therefore, in this paper, the author uses his own tentative and expedient translation of omoiyari as “altruistic sensitivity” taking the definition of altruism, “concern for the happiness and welfare of other people rather than for your own ” (Sinclair, 1987, p. 2) into consideration, regarding altruism as the psychological foundation to produce omoiyari-based feelings such as empathy or sympathy. Defining Omoiyari Omoi in omoiyari means considerate caring for others, while yari is the noun form of the verb yaru, which means sending something to others. Therefore, “omoiyari ” literally means sending one’s altruistic feelings to others. The difference among omoiyari, empathy, and sympathy is that omoiyari implies intuitive understanding and includes behaving in that way (Shinmura, 1991; Travis, 1998; Uchida & Kitayama, 2001).
Consideration toward others is not always received, and omoiyari does not expect any reward. If any reward is expected, it is not omoiyari but business-like helping behavior. One of the definitions of omoiyari which is frequently referred to is the one by cultural anthropologist Lebra (1976), which describes omoiyari as “the ability and willingness to feel what others are feeling, to vicariously experience the pleasure or pain that they are undergoing, and to help them satisfy their wishes…without being told verbally”(p. 38).
Historical anthropologist Akanuma (2004) states that omoiyari is to guess others’ feelings and pay careful attention to their feelings, accepting what has happened (or will happen) to others as what has happened (or will happen) to myself. Social psychologist Ninomiya (1991) defines omoiyari as voluntary behavior for others’ benefit. The common assumptions underlying all these definitions are that omoiyari is voluntary and that people put high value on sharing feelings with others. As such, intuitive understanding is necessary.
In this study, the author will define omoiyari as an intuitive understanding of others’ feelings that will occasionally lead us to conceive what to do or what not to do to others. Taking the conceptual issues of omoiyari into consideration, the author will further argue major characteristics of omoiyari in the following section. Major Characteristics of Omoiyari To have a sense of omoiyari and to behave with omoiyari are regarded as ideal communication in Japanese society. For example, according to a survey by the Ministry of 27 Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Hara
Education in Japan cited in the Yomiuri-shimbun (1994), elementary and junior high school teachers in Japan answered that they put the highest value on omoiyari in moral education. Additionally, in a survey on child-birth in Japan by the Yomiuri-shimbun (2005), 86. 7% of the parents expected their children to be a child with omoiyari. As these data show, to have omoiyari is essential in Japanese relational communication across contexts. In this section, the author will begin to argue major characteristics of omoiyari based on its psychological, behavioral aspects, along with the assumptions of omoiyari in previous studies.
Then negative aspects of omoiyari will be briefly mentioned. Finally, four context-based semantic areas of omoiyari in human communication will be proposed. Psychological Aspects of Omoiyari Omoiyari has been considered altruistic feelings or emotional participation in others’ mindds (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989; Kikuchi, 1988), and there are three characteristics which occasionally lead to actual prosocial behavior. The first is that omoiyari does not include the concept of “otherness” (Akanuma, 2004). This means that omoiyari means to understand the other’s feelings, not taking one’s self-concept into consideration (Otsuka, 1991).
In this assumption, there is a Japanese interpersonal view that puts high value on oneness with others. For example, Hamaguchi (1985) argues that Japanese people think that since affectionate mutual aid is essential, people should read mutual true intention, and the relationship once established must be respected as valuable. Oneness with others gets reinforced through mutual omoiyari. The second is that omiyari is neither based on pity from superiority nor on mechanistic give-and-take relations (Otsuka, 1991).
The motivation of omoiyari is voluntary, and does not expect gratitude from others (Kikuchi, 1991). If a person expects any reward when they help others, that is not omoiyari. Such a reward-expecting behavior will not be respected but rather despised, and is against the virtue of omoiyari. The third is that the value of omoiyari is evaluated based on purity of consideration of others. It goes without saying that the purer the consideration is, the more appreciated it is. However, such pure consideration of others occasionally contradicts its behavior.
A commonly cited example is that physicians and family members are reluctant to directly disclose terminal diagnoses to patients because of omoiyari (Kakai 2001; Paton & Wicks, 1996). Such communication, which might be regarded as deception, will not be criticized by others because they know the family’s true feelings. Behind this type of communication, there is an unspoken assumption that true and honest feelings will be understood by others even though one’s behavior contradicts his or her psychological feelings. Behavioral Aspects of Omoiyari Omoiyari in behavior has been studied as prosocial behavior in social psychology.
Kikuchi (1998) provides four common characteristics of omoiyari based on its psychological assumptions. The first is that omoiyari as prosocial behavior includes the idea of an action which is helpful for others. However, this does not necessarily mean that the prosocial behavior will be willingly accepted by others. The second is that omoiyari as true prosocial behavior is not done with the expectation of a reward from others. This is not a matter of whether a person receives or rejects a reward, but rather the premise that the person had no desire to receive a reward in the first place.
The third is that omoiyari-based prosocial behavior is accompanied by a kind of cost or risk of self-sacrifice. The final condition is that omoiyari as prosocial behavior 28 Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Hara should be voluntary. This means that a person is not bound by any sense of duty to others, but is willing to behave prosocially as a choice. Japanese omoiyari behavior is uniquely seen in conflicting situations. For example, it is often stated that Japanese prefer to avoid conflict rather than to try to resolve it. In such a situation, the Japanese are inclined to use mbiguous or euphemistic expressions with their bokashi (ambiguous) logic (Nayayama, 1986), and to use honne (true intentions) and tatemae (public principles) properly (Doi, 1985) so as not to hurt others’ feelings. Such a linguistic feature can be described as “the language of omoiyari,” and it is listener-oriented (Ando, 1986). Even to enemies, they do not tend to deliver a fatal blow. Such communication styles are represented in proverbs such as teki ni shio wo okuru (to show humanity even to one’s enemy) or bushi no nasake (samurai-like mercy). Omoiyari, however, is not always performed desirably.
In the following section, negative aspects of omoiyari will be mentioned with cases that are against its psychological and behavioral assumptions. Negative Aspects of Omoiyari Omoiyari does not always function as we hope. For example, overly imposing omoiyari on others might be a psychological burden or, even worse, an annoyance. This is called osekkai (meddlesome) and is the antithesis of empathetic understanding (Lebra, 1976). Especially when the elderly want to meddle in younger people’s affairs, the younger people cannot say “Please mind on your business. This type of omoiyari could be considered osekkai. In the worst case scenario, when omoiyari is not accepted by the receiver as the source expected, the source might blame the receiver in his or her mind. This is called sakaurami (to think ill of a person who meant to be kind). At the point when the source feels sakaurami, however, his or her kindness to others is no longer regarded as omoiyari. Four Context-Based Semantic Areas of Omoiyari in Human Communication As argued above, omoiyari consists of both affective aspects (altruism, sympathy, empathy) and a behavioral one (prosocial behavior).
Using these concepts, the author will attempt to conceptualize four semantic areas of omoiyari. The following figure representing the four areas of omoiyari is based on intrapersonal communication (Areas A and B) and interactive level (Areas C & D). [See next page. ] The fundamental assumption is that Area A and Area B are at the level of intrapersonal communication and cover one’s cognitive and affective aspects. Area C covers the interaction stemming from Area A, and Area D covers the interaction stemming from Area B. Area A and Area C are based on sympathy, while Area B and Area D are based on empathy.
Every feeling and behavior by a communicator is based on altruism and with intuition. Area A is the situation where a person is worrying abut someone’s undesirable situation and praying that it will be improved. The feeling is based on altruism and sympathy. In this context, examples such as praying for the recovery of another’s health or sympathizing with the struggle of others are included. In contrast, in Area B, the communicator has a feeling of encouragement in his or her mind, and the feeling is based on altruism and empathy.
For example, praying for the success or health of others is included in this area. Area C and Area D cover people’s behavioral aspects in their relational communication and social activities. In these areas, verbal and nonverbal interaction is exchanged, and helping behavior is added when necessary. Area C, which stems from the psychological feelings of Area A, stands for prosocial behavior based on altruism and sympathy. 29 Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Hara Communication activities such as helping behavior or volunteer activities are included in this area.
Also, Area D, which stems from the psychological feelings of Area B, is based on altruism and empathy, and includes situations such as supporting other people’s success with one’s own will or participating in activities to share happiness with others. Prosocial Behavior Area C: Help Area D: Support Sympathy – – – – Area A: Prayer Intuition –––– Empathy Area B: Encouragement Altruism Figure 1. Four Context-Based Semantic Areas of Omoiyari in Human Communication Concluding Remarks The primary purpose of this essay was to onceptualize Japanese omoiyari (altruistic sensitivity) with its psychological and behavioral characteristics, and to propose four types of omoiyari (prayer, encouragement, help, and support) from the viewpoint of communication. Although the author was only able to review a portion of the previous literature on omoiyari, he hopes that the essence of omoiyari conceptualized in this paper will contribute to further studies of Japanese relational communication. Based on the conceptualization in this paper, the author expects future studies to be conducted in three areas.
First, various communication styles in each of the four semantic areas of omoiyari (prayer, encouragement, help, and support) should be further examined and discussed. Secondly, the possibility of combining these four areas should be further examined using empirical studies. Third, based on the emic studies on this type of concept all over the world, to seek commonalities of omoiyari views across cultures is strongly suggested. Based on these studies, derived-etic views of altruistic sensitivity are highly anticipated. References Akanuma, K. (2004). Nihonjin wa naze gambaru noka (Why do the Japanese make efforts to anything? . Tokyo: Daisan-shokan. Ando, S. (1986). Nihongo no ronri, eigo no ronri (The logic of Japanese language and the logic of English language). Tokyo: Taishukan. Barnlund, D. C. (1975). Public and private self in Japan and the United States: Communicative Styles of two cultures. Tokyo: Simul Press. Bar-Tal, D. (1976). Prosocial behavior: Thory and research. NY: Halsted Press. Bruneau, T. (1988). Conceptualizing and using empathy in intercultural contexts. Human Communication Studies,16,37-70. 30 Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Hara Bruneau, T. (1995).
Empathetic intercultural communication: State of the art and future potential. Intercultural Communication Studies, 8,1-24. Cohen, R. (1978). Altruism: Human, cultural, or what? In L. Wispe (Eds. ), Altruism, sympathy, and helping: Psychological and sociological principles (pp. 79-98). New York, NY. Academic press. DeVito, J. A. (1986). The communication handbook: A dictionary. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Doi, T. (1985). The anatomy of self: The individual versus society (M. A. Harbison. Trans. ). Tokyo: Kodansha International. Donahue, R. T. (1998). Japanese culture and communication: Critical cultural analysis.
Lanham, MD. University of Press America. Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic cognition, emotion, and behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Eisenberg, N. & Mussen, P. H. (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children. Cambridge CB: Cambridge University Press. Eisenberg, N. & Mussen, P. H. (1989). Omoiyari kodo no hattatsu shinri (The roots of prosocial behavior in children) (A. Kikuchi. & N. Ninomiya Trans. ). Tokyo: Kaneko-shobo. Hamaguchi, E. (1985). A contextual model of the Japanese: Toward a methodological innovation in Japanese studies. (S. Kumon & M. R. Creighton Trans. ).
Journal of Japanese Studies, 11, (2), 289-321. Harada, J. (1991). Omoiyari no kozo (The anatomy of omoiyari). In Kikuchi, A. (Ed. ) Gendai no esupuri: Omoiyari no shinri, No. 291 (Current espirit: The psychology of omoiyari No. 291. (pp. 48-56). Tokyo: Shibundo. Hoffman, M. L. (1982). Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy and guilt. In N. Eisenberg (Ed. ,) The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 218-231). New York: Academic Press. Hoffman, M. L. (2001). Kyokan to dotokusei no hattatsu shinrigaku: omoiyari toseigi tono kakawariaide (Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice) (Kikuchi, A. Ninomiya, K. Trans. ). Tokyo: Kawashima-shoten. Ito, K. (1998a). Omoiyari no kokoro wo hagukumu dotokujugyo: Shogakkou ni okeru togoteki puroguramu no tenkai (Moral education classes to develop omoiyari mind: The development of programs at elementary schools). Tokyo: Meiji Tosho Shuppan. Ito, K. (1998b). Omoiyari no kokoro wo hagukumu dotokujugyo: Chugakko ni okeru togoteki puroguramu no tenkai ((Moral education classes to develop omoiyari mind: The development of programs at junior high schools). Tokyo: Meiji Tosho Shuppan. Jones, R. N. (1993).
Omoiyari no ningenkankei sukiru (Human relationship skills: Training and self-help). (Aikawa, M. Trans. ). Tokyo: Seishin-shobo. Kakai, H. (2002). A double standard in bioethical reasoning for disclosure of advanced cancer diagnoses in Japan. Health Communication, 14, (3), 361-376. Kanno, J. (1988). Ijime to omoiyari: ijimekko no kokoro no yugami (Ill-treatment and omoiyari: The distorted mind of ill-treating children). Jidoshinri (Child Psychology), 42, (6), 25-32. Kerbs, D. (1975). Empathy, and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1134-1146. Kikuchi, A. 1988). Omoiyari no hattatsu shinri (Developmental psychology of omoiyari). Jidoshinri (Child Psychology), 42, (6), 18-22. 31 Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Hara Kikuchi, A. (1991). Omoiyari wo kangaeru: Hito to hito tono kakawarigaku (Consideration of omoiyari: Science on the relationship between person and person). Kyoto: Tanko-sha. Kikuchi, A. (1998). Mata omoiyari wo kagaku suru (Another scientific argument on omoiyari). Tokyo: Kawashima-shoten. Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Matsui, Y. (1991).
Omoiyari no kozo (The anatomy of omoiyari). In Kikuchi, A. (Ed. ) Gendai no esupuri: Omoiyari no shinri, No. 291 (Current espirit: The psychology of omoiyari No. 291. (pp. 27-37). Tokyo: Shibundo. Nakayama, O. (1986). Nihonjin no bokashi komyunikeshon ni taisuru rinsho shakaigakuteki kenkyu (A study of the Japanese communication from the viewpoint of socio-clinical psychology). Shakaishinrigaku Hyoron (Japanese Review of Social Psychology), 5, 12-25. Ninomiya, K. (1991). Kodomo no omoiyari, otonano omoiyari (Children’s omoiyari and adults’ omoiyari). In Kikuchi, A. (Ed. Gendai no esupuri: Omoiyari no shinri, No. 291. (Current espirit: The psychology of omoiyari No. 291). (pp. 38-47). Tokyo: Shibundo. Otsuka, S. (1991). Nihon no kokoro, Toyo no kokoro: Omoiyari no hikaku shisoshi kenkyu (Japanese mind and Oriental mind: The studies on comparative philosophical history of omoiyari) Tokyo: Keizai-oraisha. Paton, L. & Wicks, M. (1996). The growth of the hospice movement in Japan. The American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Care, 13, (4), 26-31. Shinmura, I. (1991). Kojien (4th ed). Tokyo: Iwanami-shoten. Sinclair, J. (Ed. ). (1987). Collins cobuild English language dictionary.
London: HarperCollins. Toi, M. & Batson, C. D (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 281-292. Travis, C. (1998). Omoiyari as a core Japanese value: Japanese-style empathy? In A. Angeliki & T. Elzbieta (Eds. ), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualization and expression (pp. 55-81). Berlin: Mouton de Gryyter. Uchida, Y. & Kitayama, S. (2001). Omoiyari shakudo no sakusei to datosei no kensho (Development and validation of a sympathy scale). The Journal of Psychology, 72, (4), 275-282. Wierzbicka, A. (1997).
Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese. New York: Oxford University Press. Wispe, L. G. (1972). Positive forms of social behavior: An overview. Journal of Social Issues, 28, (3), 1-19. Yamagishi, K. (1995). Nichiei gengo bunka ronko (Aspects of Japanese-English languages and cultures). Tokyo: Kobian-shobo. Yomiuri shimbun (1994, May 27). Sofuto ni natta dotoku kyooku (Moral education in Japan became flexible). Tokyo: Yomiuri shinbun-sha. p. 30. Yomiuri shimbun. (2005, July 5). Data: Kazoku (Data: Family). Tokyo: Yomiuri-Shimbun-sha. p. 39. 32