Measures of Empathy

C H A P T E R

10 Measures of Empathy: Self-Report, Behavioral, and Neuroscientific Approaches David. L. Neumann1, Raymond C.K. Chan2, Gregory. J. Boyle3, Yi Wang2 and H. Rae Westbury1 1

Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia; 2Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China; 3University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

The measurement of empathy presents a serious challenge for researchers in disciplines ranging from social psychology, individual differences, and clinical psychology. Part of this challenge stems from the lack of a clear, universal definition for empathy. Titchener (1909) used the term to describe how people may objectively enter into the experience of another to gain a deeper appreciation and understanding of their experiences. However, contemporary definitions are much more complex and highlight a range of cognitive, affective, and physiological mechanisms. For example, Batson (2009) noted eight conceptualizations: (a) knowing another’s emotional and cognitive state; (b) matching the posture or neural response of another; (c) feeling the same as another; (d) projecting oneself into another’s situation; (e) imagining how another is feeling and thinking; (f) imagining how one would think and feel in another’s situation; (g) feeling distress for the suffering of another; and (h) feeling for another person who is suffering. Furthermore, empathy overlaps with related, although distinct, constructs such as compassion and sympathy (Decety & Lamm, 2009; Hoffman, 2007; Preston & de Waal, 2002). A review of the major definitions of empathy over the past 20 years reveals that there is no single definition that is consistently cited; indeed, the multitude of definitions is often cited as a distinct feature of the field (e.g., Batson, 2009; Gerdes, Segal, & Lietz, 2010). Despite this disparity, some commonality can be seen across definitions, and comprehensive theoretical conceptualizations have been provided (e.g., Preston & de Waal, 2002). At a broad level empathy involves an inductive affective (feeling) and cognitive evaluative (knowing) process that allows the individual to vicariously experience the feelings and understand the given situation of another (Hoffman, 2007). Its presence or absence is related to autonomic nervous system activity (Bradley, Codispoti, Cuthbert, & Lang, 2001; Levenson & Ruef, 1992) and overt behaviors that are augmented by affective intensity and cognitive accuracy (Ickes, Stinson, Bissonette, & Garcia, 1990; Plutchik, 1990). Further, empathy is a fundamental emotional and motivational component that facilitates sympathy and prosocial behavior (responding compassionately) (Thompson & Gullone, 2003). Researchers have used various approaches to measure empathy with instruments dating back to the 1940s (e.g., Dymond, 1949). Largely, as a consequence of the cognitively oriented psychological zeitgeist of the mid20th century, empathy measurement was heavily influenced by cognitive approaches, although there were some notable emotion-based measures (e.g., the Emotional Empathic Tendency Scale; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972). Prominent examples of such measures from the mid-20th century include the Diplomacy Test of Empathic Ability (Kerr, 1960) and Hogan’s (1969) Empathy Scale. In the 1980s to 1990s, social and developmental psychologists emphasized the multiplicity of empathy in terms of physiologically linked affective states (Batson, 1987), cognitive processing, or a self-awareness of these feelings (Batson et al., 1997), and emotion regulation (Eisenberg

Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00010-3

257

© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

258

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

et al. 1994; Gross, 1998). Furthermore, throughout this period physiological measurements, such as skin conductance and heart rate (e.g., Levenson & Ruef, 1992) were increasingly being used. From the 1990’s through to the present day empathy measurement has been influenced by the development of social-cognitive neuroscience, although self-report approaches have continued to be developed and extensively used. Reviews of empathy measures have been provided in the past (e.g., Chlopan, McCain, Carbonell, & Hagen, 1985; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1990; Wispe, 1986). The present aim is to provide brief, succinct psychometric reviews of contemporary empathy measures, and also to expand upon recent reviews on empathy measures constructed for specific research audiences, such as the measurement of empathy in social work (Gerdes et al., 2010) and medicine (Hemmerdinger, Stoddart, & Lilford, 2007; Pedersen, 2009). Hopefully, the present chapter will enable researchers interested in measuring empathy to gain an appreciation of what approaches are available and an understanding of the benefits and challenges that each of the reviewed measures present. Using a combination of measures may also counter the criticism that some measurement approaches are narrow in scope (Levenson & Ruef, 1992).

MEASURES REVIEWED HERE An extensive search of literature databases (PsycINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Google Scholar), test manuals and related publications, citation searches of original scale descriptions, and inspection of the reference lists of relevant reports was carried out. Only measures that were constructed or extensively revised following the first edition of this handbook were selected for review (i.e., post-1991). For this reason, questionnaires that were constructed earlier have not been included even though they have been frequently used in research. Examples include the Hogan Empathy Scale (Hogan, 1969), the Emotional Empathic Tendency Scale (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972), and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983). In addition, due to space limitations, empathy measures designed for specific applications were excluded. Examples of such questionnaires include the Consultation and Relational Empathy measure (Mercer, Maxwell, Heaney, & Watt, 2004), the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (Hojat et al. 2001), the Nursing Empathy Scale (Reynolds, 2000), the Autism Quotient (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Skinner, Martin, & Clubley, 2001), the Japanese Adolescent Empathy Scale (Hashimoto & Shiomi, 2002), the Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy (Wang et al. 2003), and the Emotional Empathy Scale (Ashraf, 2004). The measures reviewed here were grouped into three categories: self-report instruments, behavioral observational methods, and neuroscientific approaches. Self-Report Measures 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (Mehrabian, 1996) Multidimensional Emotional Empathy Scale (Caruso & Mayer, 1998) Empathy Quotient (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004) Feeling and Thinking Scale (Garton & Gringart, 2005) Basic Empathy Scale (Joliffe & Farrington, 2006a) Griffith Empathy Measure (Dadds et al., 2008) Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (Spreng, McKinnon, Mar, & Levine, 2009) Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (Reniers et al. 2011)

Behavioral Measures 1. 2. 3. 4.

Picture Viewing Paradigms (Westbury & Neumann, 2008) Comic Strip Task (Vo¨llm et al. 2006) Picture Stories (Nummenmaa, Hirvonen, Parkkola, & Hietanen, 2008) Kids Empathetic Development Scale (Reid et al. 2011)

Neuroscientific Measures 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) Facial Electromyography (fEMG) Electroencephalogram (EEG) Event-Related Potentials (ERPs)

III. EMOTION REGULATION

OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES

259

OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES Self-report questionnaires include paper-and-pencil measures. Behavioral methods include evaluations of experimental stimuli and performance on tests. Neuroscientific approaches include brain imaging techniques (e.g., fMRI) and other measures of central nervous system activity (e.g., electroencephalography, EEG), measure of facial electromyography (EMG), and autonomic nervous system measures (e.g., skin conductance, heart rate). Space restrictions limited an extensive discussion of all neuroscientific measures and only some of the more recent techniques are reviewed. Studies that have used more than one type of measure (e.g., fMRI and self-report scales; Mathur, Harada, Lipke, & Chiao, 2010; Singer et al. 2004) generally show that the different measurement approaches correlate well with each other.

Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES) (Mehrabian, 1996). Variable The BEES is a unidimensional measure that conceptualizes empathy as an increased responsiveness to another’s emotional experience. The measure assesses the degree to which the respondent can vicariously experience another’s happiness or suffering. Description ‘The Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES) measures both of the aforementioned components of Emotional Empathy (i.e., vicarious experience of others’ feelings; interpersonal positiveness) in a balanced way’ (Mehrabian, 1995 2010). The 30 items of the BEES are rated on a 9-point Likert-type response scale. The scale yields a single score with higher scores representing greater levels of emotional empathy. A 7-item Likert-type abbreviated scale and a French adaptation of the full scale also exist. Sample Separate samples of male and female college students were used in the initial construction of the BEES (Mehrabian, 1996). Reliability Internal Consistency Cronbach alpha coefficients for the BEES have been reported as follows: .87 (Mehrabian, 1997), .81 (Macaskill, Maltby, & Day, 2002; Shapiro et al., 2004), .83 (Toussaint & Webb, 2005), .90 (Courtright, Mackey, & Packard, 2005), .85 (Smith, Lindsey, & Hansen, 2006), and .82 (Albiero, Matricardi, Speltri, & Toso, 2009). Test Retest A test retest reliability coefficient (r 5 .79) was reported by Bergemann (2009) over a six-week interval. Validity Convergent/Concurrent The BEES correlates positively with the Emotional Empathetic Tendency Scale (r 5 .77) and with helping behavior (r 5 .31; Smith et al., 2006). It correlates positively with the Basic Empathy Scale (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006a) for both males (r 5 .59) and females (r 5 .70) in an Italian sample (Albiero et al., 2009). LeSure-Lester (2000) reported that the BEES correlates positively with compliance with house rules (r 5 .67) and chores completed (r 5 .57). Scores on the BEES are also positively associated with forgiveness of others (Macaskill et al., 2002) and in a sample of FBI agents, negotiation skills (Van Hasselt et al., 2005). In an fMRI study, BEES scores were positively correlated with activation of neurons that compose the pain matrix (anterior insula and rostral anterior cingulate cortex, r 5 .52 and, r 5 .72 respectively) when participants viewed significant others subjected to pain (Singer et al., 2004).

III. EMOTION REGULATION

260

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

Divergent/Discriminant Smith et al. (2006) found that the BEES correlates negatively with aggression (r 5 2.21). Similarly, in a sample of adolescents, negative correlations were reported between aggression towards peers (r 5 2.57) and aggression towards staff (r 5 2.59) (LeSure-Lester, 2000). Mehrabian (1997) also reported that BEES scores correlated negatively with aggression (r 5 2.31) and risk of eruptive violence (r 5 2.50). Construct/Factor Analytic A principal components analysis based on the item intercorrelations investigated the structure of the BEES (see Mehrabian, 1997). Although three components had eigenvalues greater than one, it was concluded that a unidimensional structure reflecting emotional empathy provided the most parsimonious interpretation. Criterion/Predictive Scores on the BEES increased significantly from pretest to posttest in educational programs designed to increase empathy towards patients (Shapiro et al., 2004) and towards Holocaust victims (Farkas, 2002). Location Mehrabian, A. (1996). Manual for the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES). Monterey, CA: Albert Mehrabian. Details available at: www.kaaj.com/psych/scales/emp.html (Retrieved December 30, 2013). Results and Comments Gender differences have been reported with females tending to obtain higher scores than males on the full BEES (Marzoli et al., 2011; Schulte-Ru¨ther, Markowitsch, Shah, Fink, & Piefke, 2008; Toussaint & Webb, 2005) as well as on an abbreviated version (Mehrabian, 2000). Although the BEES has been widely adopted by researchers, empathy is commonly regarded as a multidimensional construct. The BEES is limited in its focus on emotional empathy. The extent to which the single score on the measure is independent of cognitive empathy remains to be determined.

BEES SAMPLE ITEMS ‘I cannot feel much sorrow for those who are responsible for their own misery.’ ‘Unhappy movie endings haunt me for hours afterwards.’

Notes: Items are rated on a 9-point Likert-type scale ranging from 14 5 ‘Very strong agreement’ to 24 5 ‘Very strong disagreement’. Copyrightr 1995 2010 Albert Mehrabian.

Multidimensional Emotional Empathy Scale (MDEES) (Caruso & Mayer, 1998). Variable The MDEES focuses on the affective component of empathy and is intended for use with adolescents and adults. Description Thirty items describing positive and negative emotional situations are responded to on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The MDEES is proposed to consist of six subscales labeled: Empathic Suffering, Positive Sharing, Responsive Crying, Emotional Attention, Feeling for Others, and Emotional Contagion. The total scale score is obtained by summing across all the items (six negatively worded items are reverse scored), although reverseworded items may measure a rather different construct (Boyle et al., 2008).

III. EMOTION REGULATION

OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES

261

Sample The samples used in validating the MDEES included 503 adults (164 men and 333 women) whose mean age was 23 years (ranging from 17 to 70 years) and 290 adolescents (115 male and 140 female; 35 no gender indicated) whose mean age was 14 years (ranging from 11 to 18 years). (Caruso & Mayer, 1998). Reliability Internal Consistency The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the entire scale of 30 items was found to be .88 (Caruso & Mayer, 1998). Using the 26 items that formed six factors in the scale (see below) yielded an alpha coefficient of .86. The alpha coefficients for the six subscales varied from .44 to .80 (Empathic Suffering 5 .80; Positive Sharing 5 .71; Responsive Crying 5 .72; Emotional Attention 5 .63; Feeling for Others 5 .59; Emotional Contagion 5 .44). Using the same items from the subscales described by Caruso and Mayer (1998), Olckers, Buys, and Grobler (2010) reported alpha coefficients ranging from .32 to .82 (Empathic Suffering 5 .79; Positive Sharing 5 .85; Responsive Crying 5 .69; Emotional Attention 5 .51; Feeling for Others 5 .61; Emotional Contagion 5 .32). Test Retest Test retest reliability of the MDEES is not currently available. Validity Convergent/Concurrent In the sample of adolescents, there was a positive correlation (r 5 .63) with an adaptation of the Emotional Empathetic Tendency Scale (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972). Also, for the adult subsample, Emotional Attention correlated positively (.34) with Eisenberg’s Parenting Style scale (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Losoya, 1997). Divergent/Discriminant Caruso and Mayer (1998, p. 14) reported that, ‘The new scale did not, generally, correlate with a measure of social loneliness, with one exception: the correlation between the Responsive Crying scale and social loneliness was 2.13 (p , .05). However, the scores share less than 2% of the variance (r2 5 .016).’ Also, higher scores for women than men have been shown for the overall scale score and on all subscale scores (all p , .001; Caruso & Mayer, 1998), although this gender difference has not always been observed (Faye et al. 2011). Studies have also shown significantly higher scores for older individuals (Caruso & Mayer, 1998; Faye et al., 2011). Construct/Factor Analytic Caruso and Mayer (1998) undertook a principal components analysis to examine the structure of the MDEES in the sample of 793 adults and adolescents described above. The PCA yielded six components (with eigenvalues greater than one) labeled: Empathic Suffering (8 items), Positive Sharing (5 items), Responsive Crying (3 items), Emotional Attention (4 items), Feeling for Others (3 items), and Emotional Contagion (2 items). However, in a confirmatory factor analysis using a sample of 212 adults, Olckers et al. (2010) were unable to verify the sixdimensional structure claimed for the MDEES. Individual factor loadings were low for variables associated with Emotional Attention, Feel for Others, and Emotional Contagion. Criterion/Predictive The MDEES was found to predict a number of behavioral criteria. Caruso and Mayer (1998) examined the relationship between MDEES scores and various lifespace scales. ‘Lifespace scales are self-report scales, similar to bio-data scales, which record information on the types and frequency of behavior a subject engages in’ (Caruso & Mayer, 1988, p. 8). The MDEES scores correlated with artistic skills (r 5 .12), satisfaction with one’s career, social and personal life (r 5 .23), a warm, supportive upbringing (r 5 .20), and attendance at cultural events in the sample of adults (r 5 .18) (Caruso & Mayer, 1998). Scores on the MDEES also predicted (r 5 .30) preferences for personal, non-erotic touch in a sample (N 5 129) of university students (Draper & Elmer, 2008). Also, in an Iranian sample of 70 undergraduates, a cognitive-affective reading-based course that aids in emotion regulation significantly predicted MDEES scores (Rouhani, 2008).

III. EMOTION REGULATION

262

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

Location Caruso, D. R., & Mayer, J. D. (1998). A measure of emotional empathy for adolescents and adults. Unpublished Manuscript. Available online at: www.google.com.au/url?sa5t&rct5j&q5&esrc5s&source5web&cd51&ved50CCkQFjAA&url5http%3A% 2%2Fwww.unh.edu%2Femotional_intelligence%2FEI%2520Assets%2FEmapthy%2520Scale%2FEmpathy%2520 Article%25202000.doc&ei510G-UsL9GK-0iQea3IDIDA&usg5AFQjCNHbIUirDCZr0fhyG3vTMsCfjecUYw&bvm5 bv.58187178,d.dGI (Retrieved December 28, 2013). Results and Comments The MDEES aims to measure different components of affective empathy. However, Caruso and Mayer (1998) cautioned against using the Emotional Contagion subscale given that it contains only two items. In addition, Olckers et al. (2010) carried out a CFA that was unable to verify the purported MDEES structure. Test retest reliability of the MDEES also remains to be determined.

MDEES SAMPLE ITEMS Circle the response which best indicates how much you agree or disagree with each item. The suffering of others deeply disturbs me. I rarely take notice when other people treat each other warmly. Being around happy people makes me feel happy, too.

I feel like crying when watching a sad movie. Too much is made of the suffering of pets or animals. I feel others’ pain. My feelings are my own and don’t reflect how others feel. Note: Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 5 ‘Strongly disagree’ to 5 5 ‘Strongly agree’.

Empathy Quotient (EQ) (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). Variable Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright (2004) defined empathy as, ‘the drive to identify another person’s emotions and thoughts, and to respond to these with an appropriate emotion’ (p. 361). In line with this definition, the EQ was designed to be a short, easy to use scale that measures both cognitive and affective components of empathy. Description The 60-item EQ comprises 40 empathy items and 20 filler/control items. Respondents score one a 4-point forced-choice scale from ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree slightly’, ‘disagree slightly’ and ‘disagree strongly’ with higher scores reflecting higher empathic capacity. The EQ contains 20-control items, included to provide some distraction to minimize the ‘relentless focus on empathy’ while responding to the EQ measure (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004, p. 166). The control items can be used to check for response bias. Furthermore, approximately half the items in the EQ are reverse worded, although reverse-worded items tend to measure a somewhat different construct (Boyle et al., 2008). Sample Initial pilot testing of the EQ was undertaken on a small sample of 20 normal individuals (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). Subsequent validation samples included 90 adults with Asperger syndrome or highfunctioning autism who were compared on the EQ with 90 age-matched controls, and 197 adults from the general population (71 males whose mean age was 38.8 years; and 136 females whose mean age was 39.5 years) (BaronCohen & Wheelwright, 2004).

III. EMOTION REGULATION

OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES

263

Reliability Internal Consistency Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright (2004) reported a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .92. Other researchers have also reported alpha coefficients of .87 (Hambrook, Tchanturia, Schmidt, Russell, & Treasure, 2008), .78 (Kim & Lee, 2010), and .85 (Muncer & Ling, 2006). For a child-adapted version of the EQ (EQ-C), an alpha coefficient of .93 was reported (Auyeung et al., 2009). Test Retest Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright (2004) also reported a 12-month interval test retest reliability coefficient of .97 for the EQ. In an independent study, the 12-month test retest reliability coefficient was found to be .84 (Lawrence, Shaw, Baker, Baron-Cohen, & David, 2004). The test retest reliability coefficient for the EQ in both Korean and Italian adaptations over a four-week period was r 5 .84 (Kim & Lee, 2010) and r 5 .85 (Preti et al., 2011). Validity Convergent/Concurrent In the Korean adaptation of the EQ, positive correlations were obtained between the EQ and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) subscales: Perspective Taking (r 5 .33), Empathetic Concern (r 5 .25), and Fantasy (r 5 .20) (r 5 .17) (Kim & Lee, 2010). Lawrence et al. (2004, p. 917) reported (N 5 52) that the Emotional Reactivity component of the EQ correlated positively (.31) with Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) scores. Divergent/Discriminant The EQ score correlated negatively with the IRI Personal Distress subscale (r 5 2.17) (Kim & Lee, 2010). The EQ also exhibits significant sex differences with women scoring more highly than men (Lawrence et al., 2004; Muncer & Ling, 2006). Individuals with either Asperger’s syndrome or high-functioning autism obtained significantly lower scores on the EQ than did normals (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004; Kim & Lee, 2010). Lawrence et al. (2004, p. 917) reported (N 5 45) that the Social Skills component of the EQ correlated negatively (.35) with Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores. In a French study, Berthoz, Wessa, Kedia, Wicker, and Gre`zes (2008) reported that the EQ correlated with the BDI (2 .13), with Spielberger’s State STAI (2 .08), and with the Trait STAI (2 .11). With regard to the three EQ components, only Social Skills correlated significantly with the BDI (2 .36), State STAI (2 .34), and Trait STAI (2 .37). Construct/Factor Analytic Lawrence et al. (2004) carried out a principal components analysis of the item intercorrelations and suggested that the EQ could be better regarded as a 28-item scale with three related components of empathy (labeled: cognitive empathy, emotional reactivity, and social skills), rather than a 40-item unifactorial scale. Muncer and Ling (2006) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis that provided some support the proposed three factor structure. Berthoz et al. (2008) undertook a confirmatory factor analysis of the EQ that provided support for the threedimensional structure of the measure. Allison, Varon-Cohen, Wheelwright, Stone, and Muncer (2011, p. 829) investigated the structure of the EQ using both Rasch and CFA analyses, in samples of 658 autism spectrum disorder patients, 1375 family members, and 3344 normals. The CFA suggested that a 26-item model exhibited a satisfactory fit to the data (RMSEA 5 .05, CFI 5 .93), while the Rasch analysis suggested that the EQ provides a valid measure of empathy. Criterion/Predictive The EQ has been shown to exhibit criterion/predictive validity in research pertaining to autism and gender differences (Auyeung et al., 2009; Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004), social functioning and aging (Bailey, Henry, and Von Hippel, 2008), schizophrenia (Bora, Go¨kc¸en, and Veznedaroglu. 2007), and eating disorders (Hambrook et al., 2008). Location Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 163 175.

III. EMOTION REGULATION

264

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

Results and Comments There is some debate with regards to the structure of the EQ. Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright (2004) based the scale on a model of empathy as having both affective and cognitive components. However, some evidence suggests that the scale may consist of three factors (Lawrence, 2004; Muncer & Ling, 2006). Reniers et al. (2012) pointed out that the EQ items tend to focus more on measuring the empathetic process rather than the empathy construct itself.

EQ SAMPLE ITEMS I usually stay emotionally detached when watching a film

Cognitive empathy questions I can easily work out what another person might want to talk about I am good at predicting how someone will feel

Notes: Items are rated on a 4-point scale with the response options of ‘Strongly agree’; ‘Slightly agree’; ‘Slightly disagree’ to ‘Strongly disagree’.

Affective empathy questions Seeing people cry doesn’t really upset me

Feeling and Thinking Scale (FTS) (Garton & Gringart, 2005). Variable The FTS is an adaptation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI, Davis, 1980) for use with children. The IRI contains four independent subscales labeled: Empathic Concern, Perspective Taking, Personal Distress, and Fantasy. Description The IRI items were reworded to be more easily understood by children. Item 16 (Fantasy subscale) and all reverse worded items were removed as they were too difficult for children to comprehend. The final FTS scale comprised 18 of the IRI items including four Empathetic Concern items, four Perspective-Taking items, six Personal Distress items, and four Fantasy items (see Garton & Gringart, 2005). Sample The initial sample used by Garton and Gringart (2005) comprised 413 children (194 girls and 219 boys, aged from 7.11 to 9.11 years). Reliability Internal Consistency FTS items reflecting affective and cognitive components of empathy exhibited Cronbach alpha coefficients of .69 and .54 respectively (Garton & Gringart, 2005). Likewise, Kokkino and Kipritsi (2012) reported alpha coefficients of .53 and.56 (for cognitive and affective components), and .68 for the total scale. Test Retest Test retest reliability coefficients for the FTS are not currently available. Validity Convergent/Concurrent The FTS total scale score correlated positively with self-efficacy (r 5 .22), social self-efficacy (r 5 .27), and academic self-efficacy (r 5 .23) (Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2012).

III. EMOTION REGULATION

OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES

265

Divergent/Discriminant Kokkinos and Kipritsi (2012) found that the FTS total score correlated negatively with their Bullying and Victimization scale or BVS (r 5 2.15). Girls scored more highly than boys on both the cognitive and affective components of empathy (Garton & Gringart, 2005). Construct/Factor Analytic A principal components analysis with oblimin rotation using the sample of 413 school children resulted in a four-component solution (Garton & Gringart, 2005). The resultant 12-item scale comprised a two-dimensional structure reflecting both affective and cognitive components of empathy. Likewise, Kokkinos and Kipritsi (2012), using a Greek sample of 206 Grade 6 children, conducted an exploratory factor analysis of the item intercorrelations, resulting in separate cognitive and affective empathy factors. Criterion/Predictive No criterion/predictive validity evidence is currently available. Location Garton, A.F., & Gringart, E. (2005). The development of a scale to measure empathy in 8- and 9-year old children. Australian Journal of Education and Developmental Psychology, 5, 17 25. Results and Comments Theory consistent sex differences have been found with the FTS. Girls show significantly higher scores than boys on both affective (p , .001) and cognitive (p , .01) factors (Garton & Gringart, 2005). During construction of the FTS, Garton and Gringart (2005) proposed a two-factor model reflecting cognitive and affective components of empathy. However, the FTS was based upon Davis’ (1980) IRI which comprises four subscales. Evidently, the relationship between the FTS and IRI requires further investigation. Also, the test retest reliability as well as the criterion/predictive validity remain to be investigated.

FTS SAMPLE ITEMS

Cognitive empathy question I think people can have different opinions about the same thing. Affective empathy question Emergency situations make me feel worried and upset. Note: Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from: 1 5 ‘Not like me at all’; 2 5 ‘Hardly ever like me’; 3 5 ‘Occasionally like me’; 4 5 ‘Fairly like me’; and 5 5 ‘Very like me’.

Basic Empathy Scale (BES) (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006a). Variable The BES is based on a definition of empathy proposed by Cohen and Strayer (1996) as the sharing and understanding of another’s emotional state or context resulting from experiencing the emotive state (affective) and understanding another’s (cognitive) emotions. Description The BES measures five basic emotions (fear, sadness, anger, and happiness) wherein the measurements relate more generally to cognitive and affective empathy and not to a non-specific affective state (e.g., anxiety). For the 40-item scale, reverse worded items have been included with 20 items requiring a positive response and 20 requiring a negative response (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006a). A shortened 20-item version is also available, along with a French version for use with adults (Carre´, Stefaniak, D’Ambrosio, Bensalah, & Besche-Richard, 2013).

III. EMOTION REGULATION

266

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

Sample The BES was constructed using a sample of 363 Year 10 adolescents (194 males and 169 females whose mean age was 14.8 years). A separate validation sample included 357 Year 10 students (182 males and 175 females). Reliability Internal Consistency Jolliffe and Farrington (2006a) reported an overall Cronbach alpha coefficient of .87 (.79 and .85 for cognitive and affective components). Stavrinides et al. (2010) reported alpha coefficients for cognitive (.80 and .83) and affective components (.71 and .77), respectively. In an Italian study (Albiero et al., 2009), an alpha coefficient of .87 for the total scale was reported (.74 for cognitive and .86 for affective empathy). A Chinese study (Geng, Xia, & Qin, 2012) reported an alpha coefficient of .77 for the total scale (.72 for cognitive, and .73 for affective empathy). In a French study (N 5 370), Carre´ et al. (2013) reported alpha coefficients for cognitive (.71), and affective components (.74), respectively. Test Retest Test retest reliability over a 3-week interval for the BES was demonstrated for a French adaptation (r 5 .66) (D’Ambrosia et al., 2009) and for the Chinese version over a 4-week interval (r 5 .70) (Geng et al., 2012). D’Ambrosia et al. also reported test retest coefficients for the affective empathy subscale (r 5 .70) and for the cognitive empathy subscale (r 5 .54). Likewise, Carre´ et al. (2013) reported a test retest coefficient of .56 for the BES cognitive empathy component (N 5 222) over a 7-week interval. Validity Convergent/Concurrent Jolliffe and Farrington (2006a) reported that total scores on the BES correlate positively with total scores on the IRI for males (r 5 .53) and females (r 5 .43), respectively. The BES affective component correlates more strongly with IRI Perspective Taking (r 5 .51) than with Empathic Concern (r 5 .33) in males. Likewise, the BES cognitive component correlates more strongly with IRI Perspective Taking (r 5 .44) than with Empathic Concern (r 5 .37) for females. The BES also correlated positively with the earlier constructed BEES for both males (r 5 .59) and females (r 5 .70) in an Italian sample (Albiero et al., 2009). Total BES scores correlate positively with agreeableness in males (r 5 .30) and females (r 5 .24), conscientiousness for males only (r 5 .17), openness for males (r 5 .34) and females (r 5 .15), and neuroticisim for females only (r 5 .16) (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006a). Divergent/Discriminant Jolliffe and Farrington (2006a) reported that total BES scores correlate negatively with a measure of alexithymia, although this appeared to reflect a significant negative relationship with cognitive empathy only (r 5 2.21 for males; r 5 2.31 for females). Females obtain significantly higher scores than males on affective empathy, cognitive empathy and total empathy scores (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006a). These sex differences in reported empathy have been replicated in an Italian study (Albiero et al., 2009). Construct/Factor Analytic The BES was constructed using a principal components analysis (plus orthogonal varimax rotation) to reduce the 40-item scale into affective and cognitive empathy factors (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006a). Confirmatory factor analysis (N 5 720), revealed that a good fit to the data was obtained for the two-factor solution: GFI (.89), the AGFI (.86), and the RMSR (.06). The affective and cognitive subscales were significantly correlated for males (r 5 .41) and females (r 5 .43). Subsequently, Carre´ et al. (2013) carried out a CFA (N 5 370) which provided support for both two- and three-dimensional BES structures. Criterion/Predictive For both males and females, BES total scores were higher among individuals who reported that they would help in a real-life incident requiring their assistance, than in those who reported that the incident was none of their business (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006a).

III. EMOTION REGULATION

OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES

267

Location Jolliffe, D., & Farrington D.P. (2006a). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 589 611. Results and Comments The BES has been used in research into bullying (e.g., Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006b; Stavrinides et al., 2010) and offending (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2007). There is a paucity of literature that provides stability coefficients for the BES over a time interval greater than seven weeks. Despite collection of the BES on two occasions over a 6-month period, Stavrinides et al. (2010) did not report test retest reliability.

BES SAMPLE ITEMS

Cognitive empathy question It is hard for me to understand when my friends are sad.

Affective empathy question I usually feel calm when other people are scared. Note: Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from: 1 5 ‘Strongly disagree’; 2 5 ‘Disagree’; 3 5 ‘Neither agree nor disagree’; 4 5 ‘Agree’; 5 5 ‘Strongly agree’.

Griffith Empathy Measure (GEM) (Dadds et al., 2008) Variable The GEM was constructed due to the shortage of multi-informant assessment of empathy in children and adolescents, deemed important for accurate measurement of empathy in this population group (Dadds et al., 2008, p. 111). It is an adaption of the Bryant Index of Empathy (Bryant, 1982) used by parents to assess child and adolescent empathy (Dadds et al., 2008). Description The GEM contains 23 items that are rated on a 9-point Likert-type response scale to assess parents’ level of agreement with statements concerning their child. The GEM appears to measure cognitive and affective components of empathy (Dadds et al., 2008). Sample Construction of the GEM used a sample of 2612 parents of children aged 4 to 16 years (mean age 5 7.71 years; SD 5 3.06) from primary and secondary schools in Australia. Reliability Internal Consistency Dadds et al. (2008) reported a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .81 for the overall scale of 23 items, .62 for cognitive empathy (6 items), and .83 for affective empathy (9 items). subsequently, Dadds et al. (2009) reported alpha coefficients of .62 (cognitive empathy), and .77 (affective empathy). Test Retest For a subsample of 31 parents with non-clinic children aged 5 12 years, Dadds et al. (2008) reported a test retest reliability coefficient over a one-week interval of .91 for the GEM (affective subscale: r 5 .93; cognitive subscale: r 5 .89). In a further sub sample of 127 parents with non-clinic children, Dadds et al. (p. 117) reported an impressive six-month stability coefficient (r 5 .69).

III. EMOTION REGULATION

268

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

Inter-Rater Dadds et al. (2008) reported that inter-parent ratings for total scores were: (boys r 5 .63, girls r 5 .69), affective scores (boys r 5 .47, girls r 5 .41), and cognitive scores (boys r 5 .52, girls r 5 .47). Validity Convergent/Concurrent Dadds and Hawes (2004) reported that for mothers, correlations between GEM total, cognitive, and affective empathy scores, and Maximum Distress Allowed (measured via the Interpersonal Response Test) were .38, .56, and .30, respectively. The GEM cognitive empathy component correlated .30 with verbal IQ scores (Dadds et al., 2008). Positive correlations were found between the GEM and the Cruelty to Animals Inventory (Dadds et al., 2004). Observed Pet Nurturance correlated .25 with the total GEM scale, and .34 with the GEM affective component. Divergent/Discriminant Although the GEM did not correlate with verbal IQ (r 5 .01), the affective empathy component correlated 2.15 with verbal IQ scores (Dadds et al., 2008). Negative correlations were found between the GEM and the Cruelty to Animals Inventory (Dadds et al., 2004). Observed Pet Cruelty correlated 2.31 with the total GEM scale, 2.35 with the affective GEM component, and 2.12 with the cognitive GEM component. Dadds et al. (2009) examined the relationship between parent-rated cognitive and affective empathy (on the GEM) with psychopathic traits. For males, psychopathic traits correlated negatively with cognitive (r 5 2.41) and affective (r 5 2.17) empathy. For females, psychopathic traits correlated negatively with cognitive (r 5 2.39) but not affective (r 5 2.02) empathy. For 155 mother and father ratings on the GEM, mothers tended to rate their children more highly on total, cognitive, and affective components (Dadds et al., 2008). Construct/Factor Analytic GEM item intercorrelations were subjected to a principal components analysis with oblique (direct oblimin) rotation, revealing separate cognitive and affective components (Dadds et al., 2008). The two components were found to be independent (r 5 .07). A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated an acceptable fit (CFI 5 .90; RMSEA 5 .05), providing support for the proposed two-dimensional structure of the GEM across genders and age groups. Criterion/Predictive Dadds and Hawes (2004) reported that Reaction Time (measured via the Interpersonal Response Test) correlated negatively with total and affective empathy (r 5 2.56, and r 5 2.57) but not with cognitive empathy scores (r 5 .15). Using behavioral measures of children’s’ nurturing behavior as well as cruel behaviors towards pets, Observed Pet Nurturance correlated .25 with the GEM total score (.34 with the affective component, and .05 with the cognitive component) (Dadds et al., 2008). Location Dadds, M.R. et al. (2008). A measure of cognitive and affective empathy in children using parent ratings. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 39, 111 122. Results and Comments The cognitive component of the GEM, while seeming stable, does not show high internal consistency. Furthermore, the principal components analysis extraction employed by Dadds et al. (2008) can increase the risk of falsely inflating component loadings. It would be recommended for future research using the GEM to re-visit the scales factor structure. The GEM also does not incorporate a means of systematically reducing response bias.

GEM SAMPLE ITEMS My child rarely understands why other people cry My child becomes sad when other children around him/her are sad

Note: Items are rated on a 9-point Likert-type scale ranging from: 14 5 ‘Strongly agree’ to 4 5 ‘Strongly disagree’.

III. EMOTION REGULATION

OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES

269

Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) (Spreng et al., 2009). Variable The development of the TEQ did not begin with a conceptual definition of empathy other than to consider it at the broadest level and derive a measure based on existing empathy scales. Description Spreng et al. (2009) factor analyzed responses made on every self-report measure of empathy they could identify, resulting in 142 items from 11 different empathy and related questionnaires including the IRI (Davis, 1980, 1983), Hogan’s Empathy Scale (Hogan, 1969), Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972), BEES (Mehrabian, 2000), Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy (Wang et al., 2003), Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (Hojat et al., 2001), Nursing Empathy Scale (Reynolds, 2000), Japanese Adolescent Empathy Scale (Hashimoto & Shiomi, 2002), and the Measure of Emotional Intelligence (Schutte et al., 1998). An additional 36 items were composed descriptive of individuals with altered empathic responding due to neurological or psychiatric disease. The resulting TEQ places an emphasis on the emotional component of empathy, and consists of 16 items, with an equal number of positively and reverse worded items. Responses are made using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Sample The initial scale development sample consisted of 200 undergraduates (100 male, 100 female) (mean age 5 18.8 years, SD 5 1.2). A validation sample comprised 79 undergraduates (24 male, 55 female) of similar age (mean 5 18.9 years, SD 5 3.0). Another validational sample consisted of 65 undergraduates (mean age 5 18.6 years, SD 5 2.3). Reliability Internal Consistency The Cronbach alpha coefficient was found to be .85 for both the developmental and validation samples. For the additional validation sample, the alpha coefficient was found to be .87 (Spreng et al., 2009). Test Retest For the subsample of 65 students who completed the TEQ again after a mean interval of 66 days, the stability coefficient was .81 (Spreng et al., 2009). Validity Convergent/Concurrent The TEQ correlated positively with IRI Empathic Concern (r 5 .74) and also after reworded Empathic Concern items were removed (r 5 .71). Total TEQ scores also correlated positively with IRI Perspective Taking (r 5 .35). TEQ scores correlated positively with IRI Empathic Concern (r 5 .74), with Perspective Taking (r 5 .29), and Fantasy (r 5 .52). TEQ scores also correlated positively with EQ scores (r 5 .80) (Spreng et al., 2009). Divergent/Discriminant Scores on the TEQ correlated with a behavioral measure of social comprehension (Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test-Revised: r 5 .35, Interpersonal Perception Task-15: r 5 .23) in a sample of 79 undergraduates (Spreng et al., 2009). In a sample of 200 students, a negative correlation was observed with the Autism Quotient (r 5 2.30). Males and females did not differ significantly in total TEQ scores in the first sample, although in the second sample, females scored significantly higher than males. Construct/Factor Analytic An iterative maximum-likelihood factor analysis with SMCs as initial communality estimates was undertaken on the item intercorrelations (N 5 200). Spreng et al. (2009) then conducted a further exploratory factor analysis on the intercorrelations of the final 16 items of the TEQ forcing a single-factor structure.

III. EMOTION REGULATION

270

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

Criterion/Predictive Criterion/predictive validity coefficients remain to be documented. Location Spreng, R.N., McKinnon, M.C., Mar, R.A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures, Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 62 71. Results and Comments The TEQ loads on a single factor representative of ‘the broadest, common construct of empathy’. Spreng et al. (2009) argued that since the TEQ correlates with IRI components of empathetic concern, perspective taking, and fantasy, it may not be necessary to use multiple subscales to measure empathy. However, the TEQ does not correlate with the IRI subscale of personal distress, suggesting that it may not encapsulate all facets of empathy.

TEQ SAMPLE ITEMS I enjoy making other people feel better I am not really interested in how other people feel I find it silly for people to cry out of happiness I can tell when others are sad even when they do not say anything

Note: Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from: 1 5 ‘Never’; 2 5 ‘Rarely’; 3 5 ‘Sometimes’; 4 5 ‘Often’; 5 5 ‘Always’.

Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE) (Reniers, Corcoran, Drake, Shryane, & Vo¨llm, 2011). Variable The QCAE aims to build on earlier measures of empathy in which the constructs were considered to be either too narrow or inaccurate, inconsistently defined, or psychometric properties were less than optimal (Reniers et al., 2011). Both cognitive and affective components of empathy are measured. Description The QCAE is a 31-item measure with a 4-point forced-choice response scale. To create the QCAE, items were derived from the EQ (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004), Hogan’s Empathy Scale (Hogan, 1969), the Empathy subscale of the Impulsiveness-Venturesomeness-Empathy Inventory (IVE; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991), and the IRI (Davis, 1980, 1983). Each item was assessed by two raters. If both raters agreed on an item as a measure of cognitive or affective empathy it was included in the measure. The QCAE comprises five subscales (31 items) labeled: perspective taking, online simulation, emotion contagion, proximal responsivity, and peripheral responsivity, respectively (Reniers et al., 2011). The first two subscales measure cognitive empathy and the remaining three subscales measure affective empathy. Sample The initial sample comprised 925 participants (284 males; 641 females) whose mean age was 26 years (SD 5 9). Some 81% of the participants originated from European decent with the majority specifying the United Kingdom as their place of origin. Reliability Internal Consistency Cronbach alpha coefficients have been reported as follows: perspective taking (.85), emotional contagion (.72), online simulation (.83), peripheral responsivity (.65), and proximal responsivity (.70) (Reniers et al., 2011). Test Retest Test retest reliability coefficients for the QCAE are not currently available.

III. EMOTION REGULATION

OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES

271

Validity Convergent/Concurrent Reniers et al. (2011) reported that the cognitive and affective subscales of the QCAE share some variance in common (r 5 .31). This suggests that while there is a relationship between the cognitive and affective subscales, they still represent distinct forms of empathy. The BES correlates positively with the QCAE subscales of cognitive (r 5 .62) and affective (r 5 .76) empathy (Reniers et al., 2011). Divergent/Discriminant Reniers et al. (2011) reported that females scored more highly than males on both the cognitive and affective subscale. Reniers et al. (2012, p. 205) reported that the QCAE cognitive empathy subscale is negatively correlated with secondary psychopathy (r 5 2.64) (as measured via the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale). No relationship was observed between empathy scores and moral judgment competence scores (as measured via the Moral Judgment Task). Construct/Factor Analytic A principal components analysis (with direct oblimin rotation) was carried out for the original 65-item scale (N 5 640). Both the Scree test (Cattell, 1978; Cattell & Vogelmann, 1977) and a parallel analysis (Velicer & Jackson, 1990) suggested five components, defining the subscales of the QCAE. Although a subsequent confirmatory factor analysis in an independent sample (N 5 318) provided support for the five-component structure, a twodimensional structure relating to cognitive and affective empathy ‘provided the best and most parsimonious fit to the data’ (Reniers et al., 2011, p. 84). Criterion/Predictive Lang (2013) reported that QCA scores decreased in a sample of 185 participants (82% female) following observation of chronic pain portrayed in entertainment media. Also, predictive validity of the QCAE has been demonstrated in studies into prenatal testosterone and the later development of behavioral traits (Kempe & Heffernan, 2011), as well as musical appreciation (Clemens, 2012). Location Reniers, R., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N.M., & Vo¨llm. B.A. (2011). The QCAE: A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 84 95. Results and Comments The QCAE has been used alongside other empathy measures including the QMEE (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972) and IRI (Davis, 1980, 1983) in research studies into empathy (Kempe & Heffernan, 2011) or music appreciation (Clemens, 2012). The QCAE is the first online measure of empathy to date. However, test retest reliability remains to be determined for the QCAE.

QCAE SAMPLE ITEMS I can easily work out what another person might want to talk about. I am good at predicting what someone will do. It worries me when others are worrying and panicky. Friends talk to me about their problems as they say that I am very understanding. It is hard for me to see why some things upset people so much.

I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision. Note: Items are rated on a 4-point scale ranging from: 4 5 ‘Strongly agree;’ 3 5 ‘Slightly agree;’ 2 5 ‘Slightly disagree;’ and 1 5 ‘Strongly disagree’.

Picture Viewing Paradigms (PVP) (Westbury & Neumann, 2008).

III. EMOTION REGULATION

272

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

Variable In the PVP, empathy is conceptualized as an individual’s self-reported response to empathy-eliciting visual images. Description The PVP is a simple task in which images depicting individuals (termed targets) are depicted in certain situations. Often these are negative (e.g., confinement, injury, grief), but they may also be positive. Image duration is typically between 6 and 10 seconds. Participants view the images and make a rating response. Ratings may also relate to different components (e.g., affective and cognitive) or related constructs (e.g., sympathy, distress). Physiological recordings may also be taken during the image presentation. Westbury and Neumann (2008) defined empathy on a 9-point scale as, ‘to what degree you are able to imagine feeling and experiencing what the target is experiencing, in other words, your ability to put yourself in the others’ situation.’ They also measured corrugator electromyographic activity and skin conductance responses. Images were sourced from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang, Bradley, and Cuthbert, 1999) or other media (e.g., Internet). Variations of the PVP were also used, such as using video clips instead of static images (Westbury & Neumann, 2008). In addition, participants were asked to concentrate on their own feelings while viewing the images or concentrate on the feelings of the target a ‘self’ versus ‘other’ distinction (e.g., Schulte-Ru¨ther et al., 2008). Sample Westbury and Neumann (2008) used a sample of 73 undergraduates (mean age 5 22.5 years, SD 5 9.41). A second sample comprised 33 undergraduates (mean age 5 24.6 years). Neumann, Boyle, and Chan (2013) subsequently employed a sample of 26 male and 73 female Caucasian participants (mean age 5 25.44 years, SD 5 9.41) as well as a sample of 29 male and 70 female Asian participants (mean age 5 20.89 years, SD 5 1.70). Reliability Internal Consistency Westbury and Neumann (2008) reported Cronbach alpha coefficients for subjective empathy ratings of .91 (first sample) and .94 (second sample). Subsequently, Neumann et al. (2012) reported high alpha coefficients for empathy-perspective taking (α 5 .98), empathy-affect (α 5 .98), and empathy-understanding (α 5 .98), suggesting the possibility of some narrowness of measurement (cf. Boyle, 1991). Test Retest Test retest reliability has not been reported for empathy-related PVT itself. In research unrelated to empathy that used the IAPS, Lang et al. (1993) reported stability coefficients (time interval unspecified) for arousal (r 5 .93), valence (r 5 .99), the corrugator response (r 5 .98) and zygomatic response (r 5 .84). Validity Convergent/Concurrent Self-reported PVP empathy ratings in Westbury and Neumann (2008), correlated positively with BEES scores in the first (r 5 .56) and second (r 5 .43) samples. In the second sample, empathy ratings correlated positively with ratings of sympathy (r 5 .66) and distress (r 5 .59). Divergent/Discriminant Kring and Gordon (1998) used videotaped facial expressions that represented the emotions of happiness, sadness, and fear. Participants watched video clips unaware their facial expressions were being recorded during film presentation. Following each clip, participants were asked to rate the extent to which they experienced sadness, fear, disgust, and happiness. Females reacted more expressively than males across all film clips. Criterion/Predictive No criterion/predictive validity coefficients have been reported to-date. Location Westbury, H.R., & Neumann, D.L. (2008). Empathy-related responses to moving film stimuli depicting human and non-human animal targets in negative circumstances. Biological Psychology, 78, 66 74.

III. EMOTION REGULATION

OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES

273

Results and Comments The picture viewing paradigm is commonly employed in experimental research in which experimental manipulations are used (e.g., empathy towards different animal types; Westbury & Neumann, 2008) or in neuroscientific research (e.g., fMRI). Researchers have rarely used the same stimuli across different experiments. In addition, the results obtained depend on the specific way in which empathy-related responding is quantified (e.g., self-report versus physiological response). The psychometric properties of the PVP approach require further investigation.

Comic Strip Task (CST) (Vo¨llm et al., 2006). Variable The CST paradigm as an indicator of empathy is based on how well one can correctly assess other individuals’ mental states (desires, intentions, and beliefs). Description The CST comes from the original version of attribution of intention by Sarfati et al. (1997), and Brunet, Sarfati, Hardy-Bayle, and Decety (2000). This is a non-verbal task that presents a series of comic strips and asks participants to choose the best one out of two or three strips on an answer card to finish the story. Vo¨llm et al. (2006) modified the original paradigm using some of the original comic strips from Brunet et al. (2000) from the ‘attribution of intention’ condition, but also generated new comic strips for assessing cognitive empathy. In the pilot study of the empathy stimuli, Vo¨llm et al. (2006) reported that participants ‘rate each cartoon for clarity and empathic understanding on a scale from 1 5 (very poor, poor, average, good and excellent) . . . [with] . . . the following instruction: “The cartoons that will be presented require you to put yourself in the situation of the main character”.’ There are four conditions: theory of mind, empathy, physical attribution with one character, and physical attribution with two characters. In the cognitive empathy condition, participants choose one of two pictures to finish the story that makes the main character in the story feel better. Sample Vo¨llm et al. (2006) used a small sample of 13 male participants recruited from the general community and university populations whose mean age was 24.9 years (ranging from 19 to 36 years). Reliability Internal Consistency No information is currently available on internal consistency. Test Retest Test retest reliability coefficients for the CST are not currently available. Validity Convergent/Concurrent Evidence on convergent/concurrent validity is not currently available. Divergent/Discriminant Brunet, Sarfati, Hardy-Bayle, and Decety (2003) showed that performance of schizophrenic patients was significantly lower than normal control participants on all three conditions measuring successful intention of attribution. Construct/Factor Analytic Using an earlier version of the CST, Brunet et al. (2000) defined four conditions of attribution of intention (AI), a physical causality with characters (PC-Ch), a physical causality with objects (PC-Ob), and a rest condition. Brunet et al. (2000) conducted a principal components analysis for all experimental conditions with two main

III. EMOTION REGULATION

274

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

components extracted; the first component loaded positively on AI and PC-Ch and negatively on PC-Ob. The second component loaded positively on PC-Ch and negatively on AI. Criterion/Predictive Vo¨llm et al. (2006) showed that affective empathy conditions activated the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), temporo-parietal junction (TPj), middle temporal gyrus, middle occipital gyrus, lingualis gyrus, and cerebellum. Affective empathy was associated with more activations of paracingulate, anterior and posterior cingulate, and the amygdala, related to emotional processing. Location Vo¨llm, B.A. et al. (2006). Neuronal correlates of theory of mind and empathy: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study in a nonverbal task. NeuroImage, 29, 90 98. Results and Comments The CST may be overly simplistic and unable to appropriately estimate an individual’s cognitive understanding or responsiveness in an empathy inducing situation (Reid et al., 2012). Also, this type of stimulus has been characterized as not reflecting ‘real-life’ situations which are often more complex and involve multiple persons (Reid et al., 2012). The psychometric properties of the task require further investigation. However, the CST does provide a performance based measure (i.e., it is an actual test) of empathy, in contrast to the plethora of subjective self-report measures.

Picture Story Stimuli (PSS) (Nummenmaa et al., 2008). Variable In the PSS, empathy is conceptualized as the ability to interpret visual scenes and predict the most likely behavioral consequence based on cognitive or affective cues. Description Nummenmaa et al. (2008) used 60 digitized color pictures. The pictures comprise two categories depicting two individuals in visually matched aversive (30) and neutral (30) scenes. Aversive pictures depict interpersonal attack scenes, such as strangling, while neutral pictures present daily (non-emotional) scenes, such as having a conversation. Participants are required either to ‘watch’ (as though watching TV) the scene or ‘empathize’ (mentally simulate how the person in the scene thinks and feels). On corners of the picture yellow arrows instruct participants how to respond, for instance, during an ‘empathize’ block, all arrows point towards the area in which the target of the empathy is depicted in the scene (e.g. an attacker, victim, or a person engaged in a nonemotional activity). On ‘watch’ blocks, the arrows in the left visual field point left and those in the right visual field point right. The pictures are matched on visual variables such as luminosity, average contrast density, global energy, complexity, and pixel area covered by faces in each scene, as well as how often the actors looking towards the camera. Reliability No test retest reliability coefficients for the PSS are currently available. Validity Convergent/Concurrent No convergent/concurrent validity evidence is currently available. Divergent/Discriminant No divergent/discriminant validity evidence is currently available.

III. EMOTION REGULATION

OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES

275

Criterion/Predictive Nummenmaa et al. (2008) showed that emotional pictures depicting an attack scene increase experience of fear, anger and disgust while decreasing experience of pleasure in participants. Affective empathy stimuli resulted in increased activity in the thalamus (involved in emotional processing), left fusiform gyrus (face perception), right brain stem and networks associated with mirroring (inferior parietal lobule). Furthermore, the thalamus, primary somatosensory and motor cortices showed augmented functional coupling in relation to emotional empathy (Nummenmaa et al., 2008). Location Nummenmaa, L., Hirvonen, J., Parkkola, R., & Hietanen, J.K. (2008). Is emotional contagion special? An fMRI study on neural systems for affective and cognitive empathy. NeuroImage, 43, 571 580. Results and Comments The PSS has not been used extensively in research into empathy. The psychometric properties of the picture story approach, including test retest reliability, internal consistency, as well as convergent and discriminant validity remain to be determined.

Kids’ Empathetic Development Scale (KEDS) (Reid et al., 2012). Variable Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of empathy are examined using emotion recognition, picture based scenarios, and behavioral self-report techniques. Description The KEDS is ‘a measure of complex emotion and mental state comprehension as well as a behavioral measure of empathy’ (Reid et al., 2012, p. 11). It is a multidimensional measure of empathy for school-aged children, comprising 12 ‘faceless’ pictographic stimuli that are scenarios of events or multiple characters. The figures are ‘faceless’ to ensure the measurement of affective inference as opposed to emotion recognition. Emotional identification response cards consist of faces used to match up with the figures in scenes. Faces incorporate both simple (happy, sad, angry) and complex (relaxed, surprised, afraid) emotions. Prior to administration, children are shown the emotional identification response cards and identify the sex, mental, and emotional states. Children ascribe one of six emotions presented to a person/s in each of the scenes by pointing to the picture or by verbally labeling the emotion. Following each stimulus presentation, children are prompted with questions pertaining to inferred affective empathy (e.g., ‘How do you think this boy/girl/man feels?’), cognitive empathy (e.g., ‘Can you tell me why this boy/girl/man feels . . . ?’ and ‘Please tell me more about what is happening’), as well as behavioral elements of empathy (‘What would you do, if you were that boy/girl/man?’). In six scenarios, two characters have blank faces and children are asked the same questions for each. The number of males and females presented in each scene are counterbalanced. Sample The initial developmental sample comprised 220 children, aged from 7 to almost 11 years (Reid et al., 2012). Reliability Internal Consistency Reid et al. (2012) reported a Cronbach alpha coefficient for all 17 character scenarios of .84, for affective (.63), for cognitive (.82), and for the behavioral scales (.84). Test Retest Test retest reliability coefficients are not currently available.

III. EMOTION REGULATION

276

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

Validity Convergent/Concurrent There is a positive correlation between the cognitive and behavioral subscales (.42) (Reid et al., 2012). Also, the KEDS total score and cognitive and behavioral subscales correlate positively with the Bryant Index of Empathy (.21, .14, and .20, respectively). The total and cognition scores correlate positively with both the Emotion Vocabulary Test (Dyck et al., 2001) and the Happe Strange Stories test (Happe, 1994). The KEDS total score correlates .21 with the BEQ, emotional vocabulary (.25), while behavior scores correlate .24 with emotional vocabulary. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2003) Full-Scale IQ, Verbal Comprehension (VCI) and Perceptual Reasoning (PRI) subtests correlate positively with the KEDS total score, as well as with affect and behavior subscales. KEDS total and affect scores correlate positively with Working Memory (WMI). Divergent/Discriminant The KEDS total and cognition scores do not correlate with the Emotion Recognition Task (Baron-Cohen et al., 1997). For total scores and for affective, cognitive, and behavioral subscales, older children exhibit significantly higher mean scores on each scale than younger children. The KEDS total scale correlates negatively (2 .23) with the WCST-PE, while subscale correlations with the WCST-PE were as follows: affect (2 .24), behavior (2 .18). Also, females score more highly on total KEDS and the cognition subscale than do males (Reid et al., 2012). Construct/Factor Analytic A principal components analysis with varimax rotation produced four components. The first component exhibited the highest loadings on items with single figures, positive emotions, and unhappy situations where affect could be inferred without other characters’ mental states; this component was labeled ‘Simple’. The second component loaded on items of figures experiencing conflicting emotions or where an expectation was violated (situations which involve reconciling two perspectives); this component was labeled ‘Complex’. The third component entailed items where figures were in conflict, attacking, or taking advantage of another figure; this component was labeled ‘Aggression’. The fourth component loaded on items from a scenario that reflected a parent/ child interaction and was labeled ‘Authority’. Criterion/Predictive No criterion/predictive validity evidence is currently available. Location Reid, C., Davis, D., Horlin, C., Anderson, M., Baughman, N., & Campbell, C. (2013). The kids’ empathic development scale (KEDS): A multi-dimensional measure of empathy in primary school-aged children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31, 231 256. Results and Comments The KEDS aims to provide a comprehensive measure of empathy that overcomes problems in how an individual estimates empathy, the simplicity of scenarios in other story based scales, observer and expectancy bias that transpires from self-report measures, as well as language restraints in young children. It also distinguishes between empathy, sympathy, and distress. All KEDS scales (except cognitive subscale) display significant correlations with the WISC-IV and the VCI, suggesting that performance on the KEDS depends to some extent on a child’s general verbal comprehension. The cognitive scale, unlike the affective and behavioral scales, in most cases does not require the child to go beyond the stimulus picture to infer the answer.

NEUROSCIENTIFIC MEASURES OF EMPATHY Can neuroscientific measures such as MRI be used to measure empathy? The answer is Yes. To limit our measurements of empathy to self-report or behavioral tasks would not satisfactorily progress research in the field. We include neuroscientific measures here, highlighting their importance and future use (see Gerdes et al., 2010).

III. EMOTION REGULATION

NEUROSCIENTIFIC MEASURES OF EMPATHY

277

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) (cf. Banissy, Kanai, Walsh, & Rees, 2012). Variable MRI is a magnetic field neuroimaging technique that produces non-invasive images of the internal structures of the body, including the central nervous system. Description An MRI scanner uses a strong magnetic field that aligns the atomic nuclei and radio frequency fields. The resulting fields are processed by the scanner to reproduce an image of internal structures. The MRI scanner produces excellent spatial resolution (approximately 2 mm or better) and high levels of contrast between tissues of the brain. The MRI technique is essentially a measure of the volume of certain brain regions the dependent variable being a volume measure (e.g., voxtels). The MRI does require compliance on behalf of the participant to ensure accurate measurement (e.g., minimal movements during the scanning). Sample Due to the use of specialized equipment and the time consuming testing protocol, empathy assessment using MRI has typically used small sample sizes. In addition, it is also necessary that the participants are screened to rule out the potential influence of a range of other factors on the measurements. Screening is done for history of psychiatric or neurological disorders, use of medications that affect central nervous system function, head trauma, substance abuse, and other serious medical conditions. Reliability Inter-Rater Levin et al. (2004) reported that two technicians assessed MRI images on three separate occasions to assess inter-rater reliability. Both technicians showed good intra-class correlations between trials 1 and 2 (ICC 5 .99 and 1.00) and between trials 2 and 3 (ICC 5 1.00 and 1.00). These findings were replicated by Kumari et al. (2009). Validity Convergent/Concurrent Certain brain regions subserve empathy (e.g., ACC, IFG) and so these are focused on in MRI (and fMRI) research into empathy. Correlations between self-report measures such as the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) and the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and these brain regions would seem to represent appropriate evidence of convergent validity. Banissy et al. (2012) examined the correlations between grey matter and IRI scores in 118 healthy adults. They reported that Perspective Taking scores correlated positively with left anterior cingulate volume (.25). Sassa et al. (2012) examined the neural correlates between grey matter volume and scores on the child version of the EQ in 136 boys and 125 girls (aged from 5.6 to 15.9 years). EQ scores correlated significantly (positively) with the regional grey matter volume of the precentral gyrus, the inferior frontal gyrus, the superior temporal gyrus, and the insula. Hooker, Bruce, Lincoln, Fisher, and Vinogradov (2011) examined the correlation between grey matter volume, IRI scores, and Quality of Life Scale (QLS) scores in 21 schizophrenia spectrum disorder patients and 17 healthy controls. Brain regions significantly associated with IRI Perspective Taking were the hippocampus, anterior cingulate cortex (VMPFC), superior temporal gyrus, insula, and precuneus. In addition, there were also some regions relating to QLS-Empathy, including the insula, precentral gyrus, superior/ middle frontal gyrus, and anterior cingulate cortex. Divergent/Discriminant Banissy et al. (2012) also reported evidence of divergent validity, wherein the IRI measure of Empathic Concern was found to correlate significantly (negatively) with grey matter volume in the left inferior frontal gyrus (2 .36). Also, Empathic Concern scores were significantly and negatively associated with left precuneus (2 .27), left anterior cingulate (2 .25), and left insula volume (2 .35).

III. EMOTION REGULATION

278

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

Location Banissy, M.J., Kanai, R., Walsh, V., & Rees, G. (2012). Inter-individual differences in empathy are reflected in human brain structure. NeuroImage, 62, 2034 2039. Results and Comments MRI measures neuroanatomical structures that subserve empathy. Taken together, the cognitive component of empathy is associated with grey matter volume of the ventral medial Prefrontal Cortex (vmPFC), whereas the affective component of empathy is associated with grey matter volume of the inferior frontal gyrus, insula and precuneus. The MRI cannot show the empathic process in action. The extent to which the size of a given brain structure reflects a particular level of empathy, remains to be determined.

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) (cf. Singer, 2006). Variable Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is an extension of MRI in which high resolution images of activity levels in neural structures are obtained. Whereas MRI provides images of structural brain anatomy, fMRI provides real-time images of brain activity by detecting increased blood supply and metabolic function (Blood Oxygen Level Dependence or BOLD). Description A common technique in fMRI is blood oxygen level dependency (BOLD), which measures the hemodynamic response related to energy use in neurons. Those neurons that are more active will consume more oxygen. fMRI measures are used with tasks or stimuli that elicit empathy (e.g., PVP) and the corresponding brain activation is measured. Like the MRI, fMRI has excellent spatial resolution (approximately 2 mm), but has comparatively poorer temporal resolution (500 to 1000 ms). Another technique that produces spatial representations of active neurons is positron emission tomography (PET). However, this method has not been used extensively in empathy research (e.g., see Ruby & Decety, 2004; Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2005). Research using fMRI reveal the following brain regions are associated with the empathic response: medial, dorsal medial, ventromedial and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (Kra¨mer, Mohammadi, Don˜amayor, Samii, & Mu¨nte, 2010; Lawrence et al., 2006; Seitz et al., 2008), superior temporal sulcus (Kra¨mer et al., 2010), presupplementary motor area (Seitz et al., 2008; Lawrence et al., 2006), insula and supramarginal gyrus (Lawrence et al., 2006; Carr, Iacoboni, Dubeau, Mazziotta, & Lenzi, 2003), and amygdala (Carr et al., 2003). Some of these findings have been extended to children (Pfeifer, Iacoboni, Mazziotta, & Dapretto, 2008). Sample As with MRI, due to the use of specialized equipment and the time consuming testing protocol, empathy assessment using fMRI has typically used small sample sizes. In addition, it is also necessary that the participants are screened to rule out the potential influence of a range of other factors on the measurements. Screening is done for history of psychiatric or neurological disorders, use of medications that affect central nervous system function, head trauma, substance abuse, and other serious medical conditions. It is also standard practice that researchers state the number of right handed participants due to the laterality of brain functions. In many fMRI studies, IQ scores and confirmation of normal or corrected to normal vision is also often stated. Most research has used healthy adult participants recruited from the university population or local community. This has included Carr et al. (2003) who used 7 males and 4 females with a mean age of 29.0 years (range 5 21 to 39), Lawrence et al. (2006) who used 6 males and 6 females with a mean age of 32.2 years (SD 5 9.95), Jackson et al. (2005) who used 8 males and 7 females with a mean age of 22.0 years (SD 5 2.6 years), Gazzola, Aziz-Zadeh, and Keysers (2006) who used 7 males and 9 females with a mean age of 31 years (range 5 25 to 45), Seitz et al. (2008) who used 7 males and 7 females with a mean age of 28.6 years (SD 5 5.5), Hooker, Verosky, Germine, Knight, and D’Esposito (2010) who used 8 males and 7 females with a mean age of 21.0 years (range 5 18 to 25), Kra¨mer et al. (2010) who used 11 males and 6 females with a mean age of 27.8 years (SD 5 4.8). Unlike prior research that has used samples consisting of males and females, Nummenmaa et al. (2008) used only females (N 5 10) with a mean age of 26 years (SD 5 5.6 years). The researchers cited maximizing

III. EMOTION REGULATION

NEUROSCIENTIFIC MEASURES OF EMPATHY

279

statistical power as the reason for the female-only sample because females were argued to experience generally more intense emotional responsivity. Sex differences in fMRI were specifically examined by Schulte-Ru¨ther et al. (2008) who used 12 males with a mean age of 24.4 years (SD 5 3.0) and 14 females with a mean age of 24.8 years (SD 5 3.7). Xu et al. (2009) examined ethnic differences with a sample of eight male and nine female Chinese college students (mean age 5 23.0 years, SD 5 2.0) and eight male and eight female Caucasian college students (mean age 5 23.0 years, SD 5 3.7). Few studies have used adolescent or children samples. Sterzer, Stadler, Poustka, and Kleinschmidt (2007) used 12 male adolescents with conduct disorder (mean age of 12.75 years, SEM 5 0.49) recruited from clinics of the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in Germany and compared this sample with 12 healthy male adolescents (mean age of 12.5 years, SEM 5 0.45). Pfeifer et al. (2008) used a sample of 16 children (nine boys and seven girls) aged from 9.6 to 10.8 years (M 5 10.2 years, SD 5 0.4). Reliability Activations across the entire brain consistently resulted in positive correlations for lateralized indices of encoding (r 5 .82) and recognition (r 5 .59) Wagner et al. (2005, p. 126). Test Retest Wagner et al. (2005) investigated test retest reliability of activation patterns elicited in the medial temporal lobes using fMRI and a verbal episodic memory paradigm over a 7 to 10-month time interval. They reported significant test retest coefficients of medial temporal lobe activations for encoding (r 5 .41) but not for recognition (r 5 2.24). Validity Convergent/Concurrent As indicated above in relation to MRI, certain brain regions subserve empathy (e.g., ACC, IFG) and these are also focused on in fMRI research into empathy. Convergent validity with self-report empathy scales and fMRI has been obtained. The IRI Perspective Taking subscale correlates positively with activation of a mirror neuron system for auditory stimuli related to motor execution (Gazzola et al., 2006). Activation in the somatosensory cortex, inferior frontal gyrus, superior temporal sulcus, and middle temporal gyrus were positively correlated with self-reported cognitive empathy as measured by the IRI Perspective Taking and Fantasy subscales (Hooker et al., 2010). Activity in the precentral gyrus was also significantly correlated with IRI Empathic Concern and IRI Personal Distress subscales (Hooker et al., 2010). Sterzer et al. (2007) reported that anterior insula activity was positively associated with Impulsiveness Venturesomeness Empathy Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991) scores. Singer et al. (2004) reported that activation in the ACC and left anterior insula was positively correlated with scores on the BEES (ACC: r 5 .52; left insula: r 5 .72) and the IRI Empathic Concern subscale (ACC: r 5 .62; left insula: r 5 .52). A significant correlation (r 5 .77) has been found between fMRI medial prefrontal cortex activity and favorable ingroup biases (ingroup outgroup) in ratings of the amount of empathy felt towards individuals in pain scenarios (1 5 not at all to 4 5 very much; Mathur et al., 2010). Shamay-Tsoory et al. (2005) used Positrom Emission Tomography (PET) and showed that the cerebellum, thalamus, occipitotemporal cortex, and frontal gyrus were more strongly activated during an empathy eliciting interview than a neutral interview. Divergent/Discriminant Xu et al. (2009) using fMRI showed that Caucasian and Chinese participants who viewed images of faces receiving a painful injection showed more activity of the ACC and insular cortex if those images depicted people of their own ethnicity than if they depicted people of another ethnic group. African-American participants have shown greater activity of the medial prefrontal cortex when viewing members of their same ethnic group than other ethnic groups (Mathur et al., 2010). Likewise, sex differences in brain regions activated during fMRI are apparent from various research studies. For example, Schulte-Ru¨ther et al. (2008) tested 12 males and 14 females in a picture viewing paradigm. Participants viewed synthetic fearful or angry faces and were asked to concentrate on their own feelings when viewing the faces (self-task) or on the emotional state in the target (other-task). Female participants scored more highly on the BEES and rated the intensity of their own emotions when viewing the stimuli as higher than male participants. Sex differences in fMRI were found in the comparison of the self-task with a baseline task wherein females showed stronger activation of the right inferior frontal cortex, right superior temporal sulcus, and right cerebellum than males. Males showed stronger activation of the left temporoparietal junction than females. In the

III. EMOTION REGULATION

280

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

comparison of the other-task with the baseline, females showed stronger activation in the inferior frontal cortex than males. Criterion/Predictive Using fMRI, Jackson et al. (2005) asked participants to imagine the feelings of another person and oneself in painful situations and to rate the pain level from different perspectives. Adopting the perspective of the other person was found to correlate positively with regional activation in the posterior cingulate/precuneus and right temporo-parietal junction. Jackson et al. (2006) found in a sample of 15 healthy adults that subjective ratings of pain of targets in photographic stimuli correlated significantly with activity in the anterior cingulate cortex suggesting predictive validity for the brain region activations, and possibly of empathy for pain in others. Nummenmaa et al. (2008) compared fMRI scans to images designed to elicit affective or cognitive components of empathy. The cognitive empathy conditions depicted targets in everyday situations, whereas the affective conditions depicted targets in hard, threat, or suffering situations. The affective condition elicited greater activation of the thalamus (emotion processing), fusiform gyrus (face and body perception), and inferior parietal lobule and premotor cortex (mirroring of motor actions) than did the cognitive condition. Location Singer, T. (2006). The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: Review of literature and implications for future research. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 855 863. Results and Comments Among fMRI and PET research analyzing empathy, most of the studies have investigated empathy for pain (Jackson et al., 2005), disgust (Wicker et al., 2003; Benuzzi, Lui, Duzzi, Nichelli, & Porro, 2008), threat (Nummenmaa et al., 2008) and pleasantness (Jabbi, Swart, & Keysers, 2007). Research that examines empathy using stimuli depicting facial expressions in different situations or social interactions is at risk of confounding empathy with emotion perception. In addition, fMRI and PET research is interpreted to reflect the neural responses related to empathy. However, it might be argued that such responses are actually related to aversive responses coupled with motor preparation for defensive actions in general (Yamada & Decety, 2009).

Facial Electromyography (EMG) (cf. Westbury & Neumann, 2008). Variable Electromyography is the measurement of the electrical potentials produced by skeletal muscles when they contract (Neumann & Westbury, 2011). In contrast to alternative approaches to measuring facial expressions (e.g., observer ratings), EMG activity has the advantage of being able to detect muscle activity that occurs below the visual threshold. It provides a non-verbal index of motor mimicry which many theorists argue underlies empathic responding (e.g., Preston & de Waal, 2008). Description Facial EMG recordings can be obtained by attaching small surface electrodes on the skin over the site of the muscles that play a role in the facial expression of interest. These muscles are primarily the corrugator supercilli, zygmaticus major, lateral frontalis, medial frontalis, levator labii superioris, orbicularis oculi, and masseter. Inferences regarding the intensity of the facial expression are gained by measuring the magnitude of the EMG signal. However, the application of electrodes onto the face may increase awareness of facial expressiveness and lead to exaggerated facial reactions or more general demand characteristics. Sample The four studies that have examined facial EMG measurement of empathy have sampled from healthy adult university populations. Westbury and Neumann (2008) used 36 male and 37 female university students with a mean age of 22.5 years (SD 5 6.9). Similarly, Sonnby-Borgstro¨m (2002) used 21 male and 22 female university students with a median age of 23 years (range 18 to 37) and Sonnby-Borgstro¨m, Jo¨nsson, and Svensson (2003) used 36 male and 24 female university students with a median age of 22 years (range 19 to 35). Brown, Bradley, and

III. EMOTION REGULATION

NEUROSCIENTIFIC MEASURES OF EMPATHY

281

Lang (2006) recruited two samples from a university population: one consisting of 21 male and 22 female African Americans and the other 20 male and 20 female European Americans. The ages for each sample were not described, although it was reported that 98% of the total sample were aged between 17 and 25 years. Reliability Internal Consistency Westbury and Neumann (2008) reported a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .92 over all stimuli used in a pictureviewing paradigm. Test Retest ‘Facial EMG shows moderate test retest stability over relatively long intervals. . .’ (Harrigan, Rosenthal, & Scherer, 2008, p. 41). Validity Convergent/Concurrent ‘Facial EMG has high concurrent validity with visible intensity changes in onset phase of zygomatic major, with average correlation above 0.90.’ (Harrigan et al., 2008, p. 40). Westbury and Neumann (2008) reported that ratings on the BEES were significantly correlated with corrugator EMG activity when viewing images of human and non-human animals in negative circumstances (r 5 .35). In addition, subjective ratings of empathy towards the targets in the images were significantly correlated with corrugator EMG activity (r 5 .41). Subjective empathy ratings and corrugator EMG showed the same pattern across different animal groups (e.g., higher for human targets than bird targets). Activity of the orbicularis oculi muscle when viewing another person receiving painful sonar treatment has shown to be significantly correlated with scores on the IRI perspective taking subscale (r 5 .39). Facial EMG during pictures of happy and angry facial expressions has been shown to be correlated with scores on the EETS (Sonnby-Borgstro¨m, 2002; Sonnby-Borgstro¨m et al., 2003). In recordings of the orbicularis occuli, indicative of wincing, participants showed greater activity relative to a pre-stimulus baseline when viewing others undergoing painful sonar treatment when taking the perspective of the other person (Lamm, Porges, Cacioppo, & Decety, 2008). Divergent/Discriminant Brown et al. (2006) conducted a study in which African American and European American participants viewed images depicting pleasant and unpleasant facial expressions. African American participants showed larger corrugator EMG responses to unpleasant pictures of Black targets than to unpleasant pictures of White targets. However, the same ethnic difference was not found in the European American participants. Sex differences may also be observed in facial EMG (Dimberg & Lundquist, 1990). Location Westbury, H.R., & Neumann, D.L. (2008). Empathy-related responses to moving film stimuli depicting human and non-human animal targets in negative circumstances. Biological Psychology, 78, 66 74. Results and Comments EMG activity is advantageous in its ability to detect muscle activity that occurs below the visual threshold. Although, researchers should take care to ensure that any motor mimicry observed through facial EMG recording reflect the stimuli the participant is being exposed to and not other stimuli. For example, corrugator EMG can be elicited by non-facial visual stimuli and even sounds (Larsen, Norris, & Cacioppo, 2003).

Electroencephalogram (EEG) and Event Related Potentials (ERPs) (cf. Neumann & Westbury, 2011). Variable The EEG and ERP measure the electrical activity produced by the firing of neurons in the scalp. The firing of the neurons is presumed to reflect psychological processes, including the empathic response. Short-term changes in the EEG are termed event-related potentials (ERPs).

III. EMOTION REGULATION

282

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

Description The recordings are taken through electrodes placed on the surface of the scalp. Electrode locations are based on the 10 20 System that defines regions as frontal (F), central (C), parietal (P), temporal (T), and occipital (O). Electrode caps are designed to correspond to these regions and may contain 32, 64, 128, or 256 potential electrode locations. The EEG signal is characterized according to the pattern of brain waves defined according to the frequency band in which they are found. The frequency bands include alpha (8 to 13 Hz), beta (14 to 30 Hz), gamma (30 to 100 1 Hz), theta (4 to 7 Hz), and delta (0.5 to 3.5 Hz). ERPs are described in terms of whether the potential is a positive or negative wave and the latency in which the wave occurs. The N100, for example, is a negative change that occurs approximately 100 ms following stimulus onset. EEG and ERP show excellent temporal resolution by being able to sample brain activity at 2000 Hz or better. Sample Light et al. (2009) examined data from children aged 6 years (8 children), 7 years (25 children), 8 years (45 children), 9 years (27 children) and 10 years (6 children). The resulting sample had a mean age of 7.92 years (SD 5 0.98) and consisted of 52 males and 56 females. In their research, Gutsell and Inzlicht (2012) tested 17 male and 13 female White right-handed university students with a mean age of 18.46 years (SD 5 3.81). Mu, Fan, Mao, and Han (2008) recruited 11 male and 4 female adults with a mean age of 20.8 years (SD 5 1.82) and who were all right handed and had normal vision. Similarly, Han, Fan, and Mao (2008) recruited 13 males (mean age 5 20.9 years, SD 5 2.25) and 13 females (mean age 5 21.0 years, SD 5 1.47) that were screened for normal or corrected to normal vision and were all right handed. Reliability Schmidt et al. (2012) reported evidence of ERP reliability and split-half reliability. Test Retest Schmidt et al. (2012) also reported test retest reliability in absolute frontal (r 5 .86 to .87) central (r 5 .94), and parietal (r 5 .95 to .96) EEG alpha power for a resting condition over a one-week period. Williams, Simms, Clark, and Paul (2005) reported that over a 4-week interval, for both eyes open and eyes closed resting periods (of two minutes duration), that EEG data did not differ across sessions with respect to alpha, beta, theta, and delta waves. Test retest reliability coefficients (r 5 .71 to .95) were reported with larger reliability coefficients for eyes open as compared with eyes closed conditions. Numerous other studies have also provided evidence for test retest reliability of up to 1-year (Cassidy, Robertson, & O’Connell, 2012; Ha¨mmerer, Li, Vo¨lkle, Mu¨ller, & Lindenberger, 2012; Segalowitz & Barnes, 2007). Williams et al. (2005) revealed that for oddball targets, N100 amplitude and latency (.76 and .72 respectively), P200 amplitude (.68), N200 amplitude and latency (.47 and .71 respectively) and P300 latency (.56) all provided significant partial correlations over a 4-week interval. For oddball non-targets, N100 amplitude and latency (.74 and .63 respectively) and P200 amplitude and latency (.82 and .62 respectively) also showed moderate test retest reliability. Furthermore, Williams et al. (2005) provided test retest reliability coefficients for P150 amplitude and latency (.84 and .93) and P300 amplitude and latency (.55 and .52) on a working memory task. Validity Convergent/Concurrent Using EEG during a pleasurable task in 6 to 10 year old children, self-report measures of empathic concern and positive empathy were related to increased right frontopolar activation (Light et al., 2009). A second form of positive empathy was related to increasing left dorsolateral activation (Light et al., 2009) thus highlighting the role of prefrontal activity in association with empathy. Gutsell and Inzlicht (2012) revealed that higher prefrontal alpha asymmetry scores to both in-group and out-group members appeared to be associated with higher scores on the EQ (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). Divergent/Discriminant In an analysis of the role of theta and alpha oscillations in empathy for pain, Mu et al. (2008) used wavelet EEG with healthy adults who judged pain in pictures of hands in painful or neutral contexts. Pain related stimuli increased theta event-related synchronization at 200 to 500 ms and decreased alpha at 200 to 400 ms. Theta event-related synchronization was positively correlated with subjective ratings of perceived pain while alpha

III. EMOTION REGULATION

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

283

event-related desynchronization was negatively correlated suggesting that theta and alpha oscillations are implicated in emotional sharing and regulation for empathy in pain scenarios. Gutsell and Inzlicht (2012) explored EEG alpha oscillations in observers who viewed stimuli of in-group/out-group members in sad contexts and showed that participants displayed similar prefrontal alpha asymmetry activation toward in-group members compared with when the participants felt sad themselves. Participants did not display similarity in prefrontal alpha asymmetry when viewing pictures of out-group members. Criterion/Predictive Han et al. (2008) investigated empathy for pain by measuring ERPs in relation to pictures of hands in painful or neutral situations and revealed that subjective ratings of perceived pain in others were positively correlated with ERP amplitudes (at 140 180 ms). Location Neumann, D.L., & Westbury, H.R. (2011). The psychophysiological measurement of empathy. In D.J. Scapaletti (Ed.), Psychology of empathy (pp. 119 142). Hauppauge NY: Nova Science. Results and Comments EEG and ERP show relatively poor spatial resolution but provide excellent temporal resolution enabling time locked stimulus presentations to be matched with neural activity. However, physical movement and eye blinks can also interfere with EEG and ERP recordings and counter methods (e.g., eye blink recordings) must be taken to account for such artifacts.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The great diversity in approaches to measuring empathy may be interpreted in different ways. It could mean that researchers have yet to find an adequately reliable and valid means by which to measure empathy. It could also reflect the highly complex and multifaceted nature of empathy. It could indicate that what empathy is and how it should be measured is quite different from situation to situation or population to population. Regardless, the various measurement approaches may present a significant advantage to researchers and practitioners who wish to measure empathy. Selecting from the different measurement traditions of self-report, behavioral/observational, and social cognitive is advantageous. Subjective self-report measures of empathy currently provide the most comprehensive measures to date. However, uncertainty remains as to whether empathy should be measured as a unidimensional or a multidimensional construct. Current unidimensional measures tend to be biased towards measuring the affective component of empathy. In contrast, most multidimensional measures consider empathy to consist of at least two components affective and cognitive empathy. Aside from their subjectivity and susceptibility to motivational distortion and response bias, another limitation of self-report measures is that each measure has been based on a different definition of empathy (Reniers et al., 2012). Lovett and Sheffield (2007) argued that due to questionable psychometric properties and the social desirability of empathy, self-report measures may be unreliable and contaminated with motivation/response bias. Furthermore, most of the longstanding measures give little consideration to the multidimensional conceptualization of empathy when research findings suggest that empathy is a multidimensional construct involving at least cognitive and affective processes (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004; Davis, 1983). Another criticism of self-report measures of empathy is that they are prone to presentation bias (e.g., Eisenberg & Fabes, 1990). Being empathic is likely to be regarded as a socially desirable trait in society, particularly in certain occupational groups including teachers and health care workers. The extent to which response bias influences responses on self-report measures warrants further consideration. Indeed, in the development of the BES, Jolliffe and Farrington (2006a) included six items from the Lie Scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991) to provide a measure of social desirability. Joliffe and Farrington reported that scores on the IRI Perspective Taking and Empathic Concern subscales correlated positively with scores on the Lie Scale (r..15). Neuroscientific measures of empathy promise to be an ever expanding field in future research. The increasing development of technology, combined with cheaper and easier to use equipment, will make neuroscientific measures more easily available for researchers. However, as a methodology that promises to provide an objective

III. EMOTION REGULATION

284

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

and quantifiable measure of empathy, substantial future work is required. Psychometrically grounded research is required to develop a standardized testing protocol that includes both the test stimuli and parameters of the measurement approach (e.g., data scoring and quantification). Moreover, the testing protocol is required to undergo the necessary tests of item homogeneity, reliability, and validity. While current research tends to support the validity of neuroscientific measures in the form of convergent and discriminative validity, other forms of validity require further confirmation. Moreover, the reliability of the various measures has yet to be determined in the context of empathy measurement. In the absence of such information, the promise of the objectivity that neuroscientific approaches can bring to empathy measurement will not be fulfilled. Neuroimaging techniques provide the most direct link between empathy and the activity of the brain regions that underlie them. However, it is also a technique that is currently expensive, has high technical requirements, and displays low temporal resolution. Facial EMG provides an objective measurement of motor mimicry and is linked to the most information rich part of an empathy eliciting situation (i.e., the face). However, it can be limited by measuring only one muscle group whereas facial expressions reflect the combined action of many and it appears only validated for the affective component of empathy. The EEG and ERP provide the advantage of high temporal resolution and link to cognitive and emotional processes that are associated with empathy. However, it requires technical equipment and is largely limited to recording the action of brain structures near the surface of the skull. All neuroscientific approaches can suffer from interpretation difficulties if they are not correctly used. For example, a range of psychological processes and environmental stimuli may influence the physiological processes under investigation. Thus, it is important to ensure a strong link between the observed change in the physiological response and the empathic response. Another limitation of most approaches to empathy measurement is that they do not permit an assessment of empathy across the entire lifespan. The complex nature of empathy and the type of self-insight that is required has meant that instruments constructed in adults have not been suitable for empathy assessment in children. This has resulted in the development of child or adolescent scales through the modification of adult questionnaires. The MDEES (Caruso & Mayer, 1998) represents one exception to this rule due to its construction using adult and adolescent samples. However, it remains to be validated with young child samples. Future research might develop an empathy measure applicable across any age group. In self-report measures, the use of ‘plain language’ worded items may be one means by which this could be done. For example, the item ‘The suffering of others deeply disturbs me’ from the MDEES may be reworded in plain terms as ‘I get upset when I see someone in pain’. Although current empathy measures continue to have several limitations (Reid et al., 2012), a potentially fruitful avenue is to combine measures to provide a comprehensive approach to empathy assessment, drawing on the diversity of self-report, behavioral, and neuroscientific measurement approaches. Such a battery may best comprise a broad self-report measure of empathy administered in conjunction with appropriate behavioral tests or physiological measures of empathy in specific situations, such as in emotional contagion, motor mimicry, or empathy for pain.

Acknowledgements This research received support from a Griffith Health Institute Project Grant, Griffith Health Institute Area of Strategic Investment for Chronic Disease Project Grant, and Bond University Vice Chancellor’s Research Grant Scheme. The assistance of Kylie Loveday in research assistance and manuscript preparation is gratefully acknowledged.

References Albiero, P., Matricardi, G., Speltri, D., & Toso, D. (2009). The assessment of empathy in adolescence: a contribution to the Italian validation of the ‘Basic Empathy Scale’. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 393 408. Allison, C., Varon-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S. J., Stone, M. H., & Muncer, S. J. (2011). Psychometric analysis of the Empathy Quotient (EQ). Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 829 835. Ashraf, S. (2004). Development and validation of the emotional empathy scale (EES) and the dispositional predictor and potential outcomes of emotional empathy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad. Auyeung, B., Wheelwright, S., Allison, C., Atkison, M., Samarawickrema, N., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2009). The children’s empathy quotient and systemizing quotient: sex differences in typical development and in autism spectrum conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 1509 1521.

III. EMOTION REGULATION

REFERENCES

285

Bailey, P. E., Henry, J. D., & Von Hippel, W. (2008). Empathy and social functioning in late adulthood. Aging & Mental Health, 12, 499 503. Banissy, M. J., Kanai, R., Walsh, V., & Rees, G. (2012). Inter-individual differences in empathy are reflected in human brain structure. NeuroImage, 62, 2034 2039. Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 163 175. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., & Jolliffe, T. (1997). Is there a language of the eyes? Evidence from normal adults and adults with autism or Asperger Syndrome. Visual Cognition, 4, 311 331. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): evidence from Asperger syndrome/high functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 5 17. Batson, C. D. (1987). Self-reported ratings of empathic emotion. In N. Eisenberg, & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Batson, C. D. (2009). These things called empathy: eight related by distinct phenomena. In J. Decety, & W. Ickes (Eds.), The Social Neuroscience of Empathy (pp. 3 15). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., et al. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105 118. Benuzzi, F., Lui, F., Duzzi, D., Nichelli, P. F., & Porro, C. A. (2008). Does it look painful or disgusting? Ask your parietal and cingulate cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 923 931. Bergemann, E. (2009). Exploring psychotherapist empathic attunement from a psychoneurobiological perspective: Is empathy enhanced by yoga and meditation? Doctoral Dissertation, Pacifica Graduate Institute, California. Berthoz, S., Wessa, M., Kedia, G., Wicker, B., & Gre`zes, J. (2008). Cross-cultural validation of the Empathy Quotient in a French-speaking sample. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 53, 37 45. Bora, E., Go¨kc¸en, S., & Veznedaroglu., B. (2007). Empathic abilities in people with schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research, 160, 23 29. Boyle, G. J. (1991). Does item homogeneity indicate internal consistency or item redundancy in psychometric scales? Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 291 294. Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation I: defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing. Emotion, 1, 276 298. Brown, L. M., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2006). Affective reactions to pictures of ingroup and outgroup members. Biological Psychology, 71, 303 311. Brunet, E., Sarfati, Y., Hardy-Bayle, M. C., & Decety, J. (2000). A PET investigation of the attribution of intentions with a nonverbal task. NeuroImage, 11, 157 166. Brunet, E., Sarfati, Y., Hardy-Bayle, M. C., & Decety, J. (2003). Abnormalities of brain function during a nonverbal theory of mind task in schizophrenia. Neuropsychologia, 41, 1574 1582. Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development, 53, 413 425. Carr, L., Iacoboni, M., Dubeau, M. -C., Mazziotta, J. C., & Lenzi, G. L. (2003). Neural mechanisms of empathy in humans: a relay from neural systems for imitation to limbic areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 5497 5502. Carre´, A., Stefaniak, N., D’Ambrosio, F., Bensalah, L., & Besche-Richard, C. (2013). The Basic Empathy Scale in Adults (BES-A): Factor structure of a revised form. Psychological Assessment, 25, 679 691. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1037/a0032297. Caruso, D. R., & Mayer, J. D. (1998). A Measure of Emotional Empathy for Adolescents and Adults. Unpublished Manuscript. Cassidy, S. M., Robertson, I. H., & O’Connell, R. G. (2012). Retest reliability of event-related potentials: evidence from a variety of paradigms. Psychophysiology, 49, 659 664. Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum. Cattell, R. B., & Vogelmann, S. (1977). A comprehensive trial of the scree and K.G. criteria for determining the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12, 289 325. Chlopan, B. E., McCain, M. L., Carbonell, J. L., & Hagen, R. L. (1985). Empathy: Review of available measures. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 48, 635 653. Clemens, W. (2012). Is empathy related to the perception of emotional expression in music? A multimodal time-series analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 214 223. Cohen, D., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy in conduct-disordered and comparison youth. Developmental Psychology, 32, 988 998. Courtright, K. E., Mackey, D. A., & Packard, S. H. (2005). Empathy among college students and criminal justice majors: Identifying predispositional traits and the role of education. Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 125 144. Dadds, M. R., & Hawes, D. (2004). The interpersonal response test. Sydney Australia: Author: University of New South Wales. Dadds, M. R., Hawes, D. J., Frost, A. D. J., Vassallo, S., Bunn, P., Hunter, K. et al. (2009). Learning to ‘talk the talk’: the relationship of psychopathic traits to deficits in empathy across childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 599 606. Dadds, M. R., Hunter, K., Hawes, D. J., Frost, A. D. J., Vassallo., S., Bunn., P. et al. (2008). A measure of cognitive and affective empathy in children using parent ratings. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 39, 111 122. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113 126. Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2009). Empathy versus personal distress: recent evidence from social neuroscience. In J. Decety, & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 199 213). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

III. EMOTION REGULATION

286

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

Dimberg, U., & Lundquist, L. O. (1990). Gender differences in facial reactions to facial expressions. Biological Psychology, 30, 151 159. Draper M., & Elmer, A. (2008). Preference for personal, non-erotic touch and its relationship to personality characteristics. Unpublished Manuscript. Dyck, M. J., Ferguson, K., & Shochet, I. (2001). Do autism spectrum disorders differ from each other and from non-spectrum disorders on emotion recognition tests?. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 10, 105 116. Dymond, R. A. (1949). A scale for the measurement of empathic ability. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 13, 127 133. D’Ambrosia, F., Olivier, M., Didon, D., & Besche, C. (2009). The basic empathy scale: A French validation of a measure of empathy in youth. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 160 165. Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1990). Empathy: conceptualization, measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 131 149. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Losoya, S. (1997). Emotional responding: Regulation, social correlates, and socialization. In P. Salovey, & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence. New York: Basic Books. Eisenberg, N., Richard, F., Bridget, M., Mariss, K., Pat, M., Melanie, S., et al. (1994). The Relations of emotionality and regulation to dispositional and situational empathy-related responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 776 797. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. (1991). The impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy scale. Eysenck Personality Scales. London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton. Farkas, R. D. (2002). Effect(s) of traditional versus learning-styles instructional methods on seventh-grade students’ achievement, attitudes, empathy, and transfer of skills through a study of the Holocaust. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 63, 1243. Faye, A., Kalra, G., Swamy, R., Shukla, A., Subramanyam, A., & Kamath, R. (2011). Study of emotional intelligence and empathy in medical postgraduates. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 53, 140 144. Garton, A. F., & Gringart, E. (2005). The development of a scale to measure empathy in 8- and 9-year old children. Australian Journal of Education and Developmental Psychology, 5, 17 25. Gazzola, V., Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Keysers, C. (2006). Empathy and the somatotopic auditory mirror system in humans. Current Biology, 16, 1824 1829. Geng, Y., Xia, D., & Qin, B. (2012). The basic empathy scale: A Chinese validation of a measure of empathy in adolescents. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 43, 499 510. Gerdes, K. E., Segal, E. A., & Lietz, C. A. (2010). Conceptualising and measuring empathy. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 2326 2343. Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224 237. Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2012). Intergroup differences in the sharing of emotive states: neural evidence of an empathy gap. Scan, 7, 596 603. Hambrook, D., Tchanturia, K., Schmidt, U., Russell, T., & Treasure, J. (2008). Empathy, systemizing, and autistic traits in anorexia nervosa: a pilot study. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 335 339. Ha¨mmerer, D., Li, S., Vo¨lkle, M., Mu¨ller, V., & Lindenberger, U. (2012). A lifespan comparison of the reliability, test retest stability, and signal-to-noise ratio of event-related potentials assessed during performance monitoring. Psychophysiology, 50, 111 123. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01476. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01476. Han, S., Fan, Y., & Mao, L. (2008). Gender differences in empathy for pain: an electrophysiological investigation. Brain Research, 1196, 85 93. Happe, F. (1994). An advanced test of theory of mind: understanding of story characters’ thoughts and feelings by able autistic, mentally handicapped, and normal children and adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 129 154. Harrigan, J. A., Rosenthal, R., & Scherer, K. R. (2008). The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research. New York: Oxford University Press. Hashimoto, H., & Shiomi, K. (2002). The structure of empathy in Japanese adolescents: construction and examination of an empathy scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 593 602. Hemmerdinger, J. M., Stoddart, S. D. R., & Lilford, R. J. (2007). A systematic review of tests of empathy in medicine. BMC Medical Education, 7, 24. Hoffman, M. L. (2007). Empathy, its arousal, and prosocial functioning. In M. L. Hoffman (Ed.), Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307 316. Hojat, M., Mangione, S., Gonnella, J. S., Nasca, T., Veloski, J. J., & Kane, G. (2001). Empathy in medical education and patient care. Academic Medicine, 76, 669. Hooker, C. I., Bruce, L., Lincoln, S. H., Fisher, M., & Vinogradov, S. (2011). Theory of mind skills are related to gray matter volume in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex in schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry, 70, 1169 1178. Hooker, C. I., Verosky, S. C., Germine, L. T., Knight, R. T., & D’Esposito, M. (2010). Neural activity during social signal perception correlates with self-reported empathy. Brain Research, 1308, 110 113. Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonette, V., & Garcia, S. (1990). Naturalistic social cognition: Empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 730 742. Jabbi, M., Swart, M., & Keysers, C. (2007). Empathy for positive and negative emotions in the gustatory cortex. NeuroImage, 34, 1744 1753. Jackson, P. L., Brunet, E., Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2006). Empathy examined through the neural mechanisms involved in imagining how I feel versus how you feel pain. Neuropsychologia, 44, 752 761. Jackson, P. L., Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2005). How do we perceive the pain of others? A window into the neural processes involved in empathy. NeuroImage, 24, 771 779.

III. EMOTION REGULATION

REFERENCES

287

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006a). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 589 611. Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006b). Examining the relationship between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behaviour, 32, 540 550. Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Examining the relationship between low empathy and self-reported offending. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 265 286. Kempe, V., & Heffernan, E. (2011). Digit ratio is linked to affective empathy in women. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 430 433. Kerr, W. A. (1960). Diplomacy Test of Empathy. Chicago, IL: Psychometric Affiliates. Kim, J., & Lee, S. J. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the empathy quotient scale. Psychiatry Investigation, 7, 24 30. Kokkinos, C. M., & Kipritsi, E. (2012). The relationship between bullying, victimization, trait emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and empathy among preadolescents. Social and Psychological Education, 15, 41 58. Kra¨mer, U. M., Mohammadi, B., Don˜amayor, N., Samii, A., & Mu¨nte, T. F. (2010). Emotional and cognitive aspects of empathy and their relation to social cognition an fMRI study. Brain Research, 1311, 110 120. Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. (1998). Differences in emotion: expression, experience, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 686 703. Kumari, V., Barkataki, I., Goswami, S., Flora, S., Das, M., & Taylor, P. (2009). Dysfunctional, but not functional, impulsivity is associated with a history of seriously violent behaviour and reduced orbitofrontal and hippocampal volumes in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research, 173, 39 44. Lamm, C., Porges, E. C., Cacioppo, J. T., & Decety, J. (2008). Perspective taking is associated with specific facial responses during empathy for pain. Brain Research, 1227, 153 161. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1999) International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical Report A-4. Gainesville, FL: Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida. Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradley, M. M., & Hamm, A. O. (1993). Looking at pictures: affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology, 30, 261 273. Lang, R. E. (2013). Chronic pain in entertainment media: Using empathy to reduce stigma. Masters Thesis, Louisiana State University. Larsen, J. X., Norris, C. T., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2003). Effects of positive and negative affect on electromyographic activity over zygomaticus major and corrugator supercilii. Psychophysiology, 40, 776 783. Lawrence, E. J., Shaw, P., Baker, D., Baron-Cohen, S., & David, A. S. (2004). Measuring empathy: reliability and validity of the empathy quotient. Psychological Medicine, 34, 911 924. Lawrence, E. J., Shaw, P., Giampietro, V. P., Surguladze, S., Brammer, M. J., & David, A. S. (2006). The role of ‘shared representations’ in social perception and empathy: an fMRI study. NeuroImage, 29, 1173 1184. LeSure-Lester, G. E. (2000). Relation between empathy and aggression and behaviour compliance among abused group home youth. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 31, 153 161. Levenson, R. W., & Ruef, A. M. (1992). Empathy: a physiological substrate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 234 246. Levin, H. S., Zhang, L., Dennis, M., Ewing-Cobbs, L., Schachar, R., Max, J., et al. (2004). Psychosocial outcome of TBI in children with unilateral frontal lesions. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10, 305 316. Light, S. N., Coan, J. A., Zahn-Waxler, C., Frye, C., Goldsmith, H. H., & Davidson, R. J. (2009). Empathy is associated with dynamic change in prefrontal brain electrical activity during positive emotion in children. Child Development, 80, 1210 1231. Lovett, B. J., & Sheffield, R. A. (2007). Affective empathy deficits in aggressive children and adolescents: a critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 1 13. Macaskill, A., Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2002). Forgiveness of self and others and emotional empathy. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 663 665. Marzoli, D., Palumbo, R., Di Domenico, A., Penolazzi, B., Garganese, P., & Tommasi, L. (2011). The relation between self-reported empathy and motor identification with imagined agents. PLoS ONE, 6, e14595. Mathur, V. A., Harada, T., Lipke, T., & Chiao, J. Y. (2010). Neural basis of extraordinary empathy and altruistic motivation. NeuroImage, 51, 1468 1475. Mehrabian, A. (1996). Manual for the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES). Monterey, CA: Albert Mehrabian. Mehrabian, A. (1997). Relations among personality scales of aggression, violence, and empathy: Validational evidence bearing on the Risk of Eruptive Violence Scale. Aggressive Behaviour, 23, 433 445. Mehrabian, A. (2000). Beyond IQ: broad-based measurement of individual success potential or ‘emotional intelligence.’. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126, 133 239. Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525 543. Mercer, S. W., Maxwell, M., Heaney, D., & Watt, G. C. M. (2004). The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure: Development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure. Family Practice, 21, 699 705. Mu, Y., Fan, Y., Mao, L., & Han, S. (2008). Event-related theta and alpha oscillations mediate empathy for pain. Brain Research, 1234, 128 136. Muncer, S. J., & Ling, J. (2006). Psychometric analysis of the Empathy Quotient (EQ) Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1111 1119. Neumann, D. L., Boyle, G. J., & Chan, R. C. K. (2013). Empathy towards individuals of the same and different ethnicity when depicted in negative and positive contexts. Personality and Individual differences, 55, 8 13. Neumann, D. L., & Westbury, H. R. (2011). The psychophysiological measurement of empathy. In D. J. Scapaletti (Ed.), Psychology of empathy (pp. 119 142). Hauppauge NY: Nova Science. Nummenmaa, L., Hirvonen, J., Parkkola, R., & Hietanen, J. K. (2008). Is emotional contagion special? An fMRI study on neural systems for affective and cognitive empathy. NeuroImage, 43, 571 580. Olckers, C., Buys, M. A., & Grobler, S. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of the multi-dimensional emotional empathy scale in the South African context. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36, 1 8. Pedersen, R. (2009). Empirical research on empathy in medicine: a critical review. Patient Education and Counseling, 76, 307 322.

III. EMOTION REGULATION

288

10. MEASURES OF EMPATHY: SELF-REPORT, BEHAVIORAL, AND NEUROSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES

Pfeifer, J. H., Iacoboni, M., Mazziotta, J. C., & Dapretto, M. (2008). Mirroring others’ emotions relates to empathy and interpersonal competence in children. NeuroImage, 39, 2076 2085. Plutchik, R. (1990). Evolutionary bases of empathy. In N. Eisenberg, & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 38 46). New York: Cambridge University Press. Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: its ultimate and proximal bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1 72. Preti, A., Vellante, M., Baron-Cohen, S., Zucca, G., Petretto, D. R., & Masala, C. (2011). The empathy quotient: A cross-cultural comparison of the Italian version. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 16, 50 70. Reid, C., Davis, D., Horlin, C., Anderson, M., Baughman, N., & Campbell, C. (2012). The kids’ empathic development scale (KEDS): A multidimensional measure of empathy in primary school-aged children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31, 231 256. Reniers, R., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Vo¨llm., B. A. (2011). The QCAE: A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 84 95. Reniers, R., Corcoran, R., Vo¨llm, B. A., Mashru, A., Howard, R., & Liddle, P. F. (2012). Moral decision-making, ToM, empathy and the default mode network. Biological Psychology, 90, 202 210. Reynolds, W. (2000). The measurement and development of empathy in nursing. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Rouhani, A. (2008). An investigation into emotional intelligence, foreign language anxiety and empathy through a cognitive-affective course in an EFL context. Linguistik Online, 34, 41 57. Ruby, P., & Decety, J. (2004). How would you feel versus how do you think she would feel? A neuroimaging study of perspective-taking with social emotions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 988 999. Sarfati, Y., Hardy-Bayle, M. C., Besche, C., & Widlocher, D. (1997). Attribution of intentions to others in people with schizophrenia: a nonverbal exploration with comic strips. Schizophrenia Research, 25, 199 209. Sassa, Y., Taki, Y., Takeuchi, H., Hashizume, H., Asano, M., Asano, K., et al. (2012). The correlation between brain gray matter volume and empathizing quotients in healthy children. NeuroImage, 60, 2035 2041. Schmidt, L. A., Santesso, D. L., Miskovic, V., Mathewson, K. J., McCabe, R. E., Antony, M. M. et al. (2012). Test retest reliability of regional electroencephalogram (EEG) and cardiovascular measures in social anxiety disorder (SAD). International Journal of Psychophysiology, 84, 65 73. Schulte-Ru¨ther, M., Markowitsch, H. J., Shah, N. J., Fink, G. R., & Piefke, M. (2008). Gender differences in brain networks supporting empathy. NeuroImage, 42, 393 403. Segalowitz, S. J., & Barnes, K. L. (2007). The reliability of ERP components in the auditory oddball paradigm. Psychophysiology, 30, 451 459. Seitz, R. J., Scha¨fer, R., Scherfeld, D., Friederichs, S., Popp, K., Wittsack, H. J., et al. (2008). Valuating other people’s emotional face expressions: a combined functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography study. Neuroscience, 152, 713 722. Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Lester, H., Chisin, R., Israel, O., Bar-Shalom, R., Peretz, A. et al. (2005). The neural correlates of understanding other’s distress: a positron emotion tomography investigation of accurate empathy. NeuroImage, 27, 468 472. Shapiro, J., Morrison, E. H., & Boker, J. R. (2004). Teaching empathy to first year medical students: evaluation of an elective literature and medicine course. Education for Health, 17, 73 84. Singer, T. (2006). The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: review of literature and implications for future research. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 855 863. Singer, T., Seymour, B., O’Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004). Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science, 303, 1157 1162. Smith, M. S., Lindsey, C. R., & Hansen, C. E. (2006). Corporal punishment and the medicating effects of parental acceptance-rejection and gender on empathy in a southern rural population. Cross-Cultural Research, 40, 287 305. Sonnby-Borgstro¨m, M. (2002). Automatic mimicry reactions as related to differences in emotional empathy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 433 443. Sonnby-Borgstro¨m, M., Jo¨nsson, P., & Svensson, O. (2003). Emotional empathy as related to mimicry reactions at different levels of information processing. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 3 23. Spreng, R. N., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 62 71. Stavrinides, P., Georgiou, S., & Theofanous, V. (2010). Bullying and empathy: A short-term longitudinal investigation. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 30, 793 802. Sterzer, P., Stadler, C., Poustka, F., & Kleinschmidt, A. (2007). A structural neural deficit in adolescents with conduct disorder and its association with lack of empathy. NeuroImage, 37, 335 342. Thompson, K. L., & Gullone, E. (2003). Promotion of empathy and prosocial behaviour in children through humane education. Australian Psychologist, 38, 175 182. Titchener, E. (1909). Elementary psychology of the thought processes. New York: Macmillan. Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. R. (2005). Gender differences in the relationship between empathy and forgiveness. Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 673 685. Van Hasselt, V. B., Baker, M. T., Romano, S. J., Sellers, A. H., Noesner, G. W., & Smith, S. (2005). Development and validation of a role-play test for assessing crisis (hostage) negotiation skills. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 32, 345 361. Velicer, W. F., & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Component analysis versus common factor-analysis: Some further observations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 97 114. Vo¨llm, B. A., Taylor, A. N., Richardson, P., Corcoran, R., Stirling, J., McKie, S., et al. (2006). Neuronal correlates of theory of mind and empathy: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study in a nonverbal task. NeuroImage, 29, 90 98. Wagner, K., Frings, L., Quiske, A., Unterrainer, J., Schwarzwald, R., Spreer, J. et al. (2005). The reliability of fMRI activations in the medial temporal lobes in a verbal episodic memory task. NeuroImage, 28, 122 131.

III. EMOTION REGULATION

REFERENCES

289

Wang, Y., Davidson, M., Yakushko, O. F., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A., & Bleier, J. K. (2003). The scale of ethnocultural empathy: Development, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 221 234. Wechsler, D. (2003). WISC-IV technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Westbury, H. R., & Neumann, D. L. (2008). Empathy-related responses to moving film stimuli depicting human and non-human animal targets in negative circumstances. Biological Psychology, 78, 66 74. Wicker, B., Keysers, C., Plailly, J., Royet, J. P., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (2003). Both of us disgusted in my insula: the common neural basis of seeing and feeling disgust. Neuron, 40, 655 664. Williams, L. M., Simms, E., Clark, C. R., & Paul, R. H. (2005). The test retest reliability of a standardized neurocognitive and neurophysiological test battery: ‘Neuromaker’. International Journal of Neuroscience, 115, 1605 1630. Xu, X., Zuo, X., Wang, X., & Han, S. (2009). Do you feel my pain? Racial group membership modulates empathic neural responses. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 8525 8529. Yamada, M., & Decety, J. (2009). Unconscious affective processing and empathy: an investigation of subliminal priming on the detection of painful facial expressions. Pain, 143, 71 75.

III. EMOTION REGULATION