Research methodology

Richard Wirth

Concept Explication (pt. 1): Empathy

With the increasingly ubiquitous nature of networked computers and our always-on

society, there is a general societal concern that upcoming generations are becoming more

narcissistic and less concerned with others, loosely defined as a lack of empathy. Empathy is

primarily explicated within the fields of psychology and therapy, with sparse but substantive

research also occurring in neuroscience and aesthetics. As a psychological concept, empathy

originates from the German Einfühlung, which is described as the placing of human feelings into

other entities in order to differentiate experiences between observers and objects (Depew, 2005).

Theoretical Definitions

Early usage of empathy in research literature has it broadly defined as the capacity for

individuals to take the role of others (Dymond, 1949). Operating under this ambiguous

explication, researchers have struggled to distinguish between the concept as an affective state or

a cognitive ability (Jonason & Krause, 2013). Some researchers have definitively stated that

there are three distinct forms of empathy, with Blair (2005) classifying not only a cognitive and

affective form of empathy, but a motor form of empathy as well.

In terms of affective state, Stotland (1969) relates the concept as any vicarious emotional

response to the perceived emotions of another. This verbiage of the other-oriented emotional

response is common within empathy literature, with the emotional affect being a direct result of

the comprehension of perceiving what another person is feeling (Davis; 1983; Batson, 1991).

However, this perspective of empathy as an affective state is often conflated with feelings of

sympathy – feelings of sorrow or shared remorse on behalf of another (Clark 2010). Many

leading researchers in the field still fail to clearly establish this differentiation, as Eisenberg

(2010) defines empathy as an identical or highly similar affective response to another’s

emotional state, while previously having declared the need for “separation between self and

other” (Eisenberg & Fables, 1990).

Clark (2010) explicates this conflation of affective and cognitive empathy within a

therapy context, suggesting that cognitive empathy is a means of understanding the feelings and

meanings of an individual, in such a way that they can be accurately conveyed. Clark goes on to

identify four theoretical components to cognitive empathy, beginning with the concept of Aim,

or the goal of identification of an individual’s emotional state. This is followed by Appraisal, in

which identification is achieved through a simulated and transitory sharing of experiences, and

subsequently Apprehension, in which the mental model of another’s emotions is constructed.

Finally, Agreement represents the ability for an individual to maintain that separation between

self and other, such that empathetic judgment is not impaired by sympathy, or affective empathy.

This cognitive approach is summarized by Coplan (2011) as a process in which an observer is

able to “simulate another’s situated psychological state while maintaining a clear self-other

differentiation” (p.58).

Operational Definitions

Given the nuanced concept of empathy and the numerous directions from which it has

been defined, it can be a challenging concept to measure. Research has primarily measured

empathy through self-report, but newer approaches have involved a number of psychophysical

tests that have provided novel insights.

Empathy is most commonly operationalized by using emotional rating methods to

measure the ability for an individual to accurately “transpose himself into the thinking, feeling,

and acting of others” (Dymond 1949). Feshbach and Roe (1968) argued that for the

measurement of empathetic ability in children, there must be congruency between emotion

assessed through self-report measures and the emotion of testing stimuli. The researchers

exposed children to various audio-visual stimuli and matched their ability to accurately list the

emotional states present in media content.

In viewing empathy as a measurable construct, some researchers have attempted to

establish models or multi-dimensional variables of the trait (Dymond, 1949; Reniers et al. 2011;

Edele et al. 2013). Bagozzie and Moore (1994) developed a four dimensional model of empathy

as a guide to prosocial behavior in child abuse; namely, the authors described perspective-taking,

compassion, a protection motivation, and fantasy elaboration as fundamental to empathizing for

another individual. Jolliffe and Farrington (2006) also included perspective-taking as a factor in

their measure, but included “intelligence” as a measure of cognitive empathy ability, and

“impulsivity” as a correlate for anti-social (non-empathetic) behavior.

Sonnby-Borgström et al. (2003) operationalized the concept of empathy as the perception

of positive or negative emotional imagery and the resulting physical reactions, measured through

facial mimicry reactions as represented by electromyographic activity. This practice of studying

the physicality of empathy extends back to Murphy (1947), which observed empathy as an act of

mimicry, and physical animation in response to perceived emotion. Blair (2005) later classified

these findings as motor empathy, which is distinct from both affective and cognitive empathy.

Distinctions and Commonalities

One of the most fundamental issues in defining empathy within the extant literature

surrounds the debate of whether or not empathy is a function of experiencing or purely

perceiving the emotion of others (Chlopan et al. 1985). Gladkova (2010) takes a psychological

and linguistic approach to separating the concepts of sympathy and empathy, evidencing a

significant difference in their role in communicating emotion. Clark (2010) declares that the

conflation of affective and cognitive empathy can lead to issues in practice for therapists, lending

strong evidence for their separation. Gladstein (1983) describes the separation between affective

and cognitive empathy as “feeling the same way as another person” vs. “taking the role of

another person”.

In terms of commonalities, the classifications of empathy types seem to share certain

characteristics. The four-dimensional model provided by Bagozzie and Moore (1994) bears a

strong resemblance to that of the factors in therapy-based empathy given by Clark (2010), in that

there are clear goals or motives to empathy with specific individuals, as well as a differentiation

between the self and other. Many theoretical and operational definitions state that for empathy to

take place, one must be able to fully simulate and gain a strong understanding of another’s

emotional experience. Research has traditionally and consistently measured both affective and

cognitive empathy as the ability to accurately assess and match emotional states.

Recommendations for Defining

While theoretically each definition of empathy is saliently related to the perceived

emotions of another person or object, there is a critical need to establish operational definitions.

Affective, cognitive, and to motor empathy each have few but significant differences in their

operationalization, with affective empathy involving shared emotions, cognitive empathy

focusing on differentiation during perspective-taking, and motor focusing on behavioral and

physical reactions as a result of identifying another’s emotional state. My recommendation is that

a specific classification of empathy be chosen for the appropriate study. As an example, when

measuring empathy in a population from the perspective of emotional habituation, affective

empathy should be incorporated.

Concept Explication (pt.2): Empathy

Measuring an individual’s empathic ability, emotional response, and motor behavior each

require unique measures and study environments. One shared feature among all approaches

however is the presence of self-report using 5- to 7-point Likert scales in order to gauge self- and

other-related emotional assessment.

Development of Measures

Likert-scale items are a common measure within the social sciences, and are used to get a

measure of how the subjects rate their agreement or feeling of specific emotions. Typically a

scale with five or seven points, subjects answer on a range from “Strongly Disagree” to

“Strongly Agree”, or from “Not at All” to “Extremely”. Measures such as the Questionnaire of

Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE) have subjects give their own assessment of their

abilities by answering questions such as “I am quick to spot when someone in a group is feeling

awkward or uncomfortable” (Reiners et al. 2011). Davis (1983) developed the Interpersonal

Reactivity Index to assess empathetic ability through measuring empathy as a multi-dimensional

variable consisting of: perspective-taking, fantasy, empathic concern, and personal distress. This

measure has high validity due to its close-ended questionnaire design, the dimensions that

properly separate cognitive empathy (perspective-taking) and affective empathy (personal

distress), and it has been validated with other measures for concurrent validity.

Feshbach and Roe (1986) presented children with audio and visual narrative stimuli of

other children, and asked the subjects to share their feelings and interpretations of the material.

Subscales for cognitive and affective empathy were used to rate answers. While the assessment

of children for a concept like empathy can be difficult, this measure has several issues with

validity. Open-ended response questions generally have several issues that lower internal

validity. In particular, the FASTE suffers from the issue of response bias, presentation bias, and

the relatively poor ability for participants to accurately report on their behaviors. It has also been

criticized for poorly validated psychometric measures and ambiguity in scoring (Delpechitre

2013). This measure lacks in external and construct validity, but has been shown to have

relatively acceptable concurrent validity for measures using visual stimuli.

When measuring specific types of empathy, such as motor empathy, unique measures

such as electromyography machines and eye-tracking software are employed to gather specific

data. In the case of Sonnby-Borgström et al. (2003), participants’ facial reactions were tracked at

the automatic (56 ms) reaction level to determine if there were automatic responses to emotional

stimuli. While psychophysical measures such as this are often high in reliability, they may lack

in construct and concurrent validity, due to the interpretive nature of what physical measures are

actually measuring.

Research Question

For American adolescents, controlling for gender, socio-economic status, and mode of

social media, what is the relationship between social media usage and cognitive empathic ability,

and what is the relationship between empathy stimulus type and affective empathetic response to

news media?

After gathering self-report data for social media usage, American adolescents are

assessed for cognitive empathic ability. In a second study, participants are asked to report their

affective empathic responses to news coverage presented via video, web article, captioned

image, and oral communication.

Rationale

To answer the question about how social technology usage plays a role in the

development of empathy in the upcoming generation (American adolescents), my study will

employ both cognitive and affective measures. The study will assess social media usage and

demographic information, and will employ both the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), as well

as open-ended responses (Davis 1983). Open-ended responses will be based primarily on the

Feshbach Affective Situations Test of Empathy (FASTE), but will be adopted to the specific

context of shown media (Feshbach & Roe 1986). In addition to these two established measures,

Likert-scale items will be developed to assess empathic perspective-taking for news media items.

Davis (1983) used the IRI to measure empathy traits as they relate to interpersonal and

social functioning, and found perspective-taking to be positively related to extraversion and

negatively related to social dysfunction. By assessing participants using this measure,

conclusions may be drawn as to the prosocial consequences of extended media usage and their

results on Likert-scale items.

While empathy is a difficult concept to measure due to the numerous types of empathy

and its relatively inconsistent definitions and operationalization within the literature, this study

design should help to increase validity. Rather than purely assessing self-report empathy, the

proposed study will compare results in interpretation across communication modalities, while

controlling for a number of salient variables. Prior research has explored the role of digitally

mediated and expressed empathy, and the need for such assessments (Terry & Cain, 2016). By

properly operationalizing empathy along affective vs. cognitive lines and using appropriately

validated measures to assess each, the proposed study should have acceptable levels of validity

in measuring empathy levels in American adolescents.

References

Bagozzi, R., & Moore, D. (1994). Public service advertisements: Emotions and empathy guide

prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 56–70.

Bennett, J. (1995). Methodological notes on empathy: further considerations. Advances in

Nursing Science, 18(1), 36–50.

Blair, R. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others: dissociating forms of empathy through

the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and Cognition, 14, 698–

718.

Chlopan, B. E., Marianne, L., Carbonell, J. L., & Hagen, R. L. (1985). Empathy : Review of

Available Measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 635–653.

Clark, A. J. (2010). Empathy and Sympathy : Therapeutic Distinctions in Counseling. Journal of

Mental Health Counseling, 32(2), 95–101.

Coplan, A. (2011). Will the real empathy please stand up? A case for a narrow conceptualization.

Southern Journal of Philosophy, 49(SUPPL. 1), 40–65. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-

6962.2011.00056.x

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a

multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

Decety, J. (2009). Empathy, sympathy and the perception of pain. Pain, 145(3), 365–366.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2009.08.006

Delpechitre, D. (2013). Review and assessment of past empathy scales to measure salesperson’s

empathy. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 13, 1–16. Retrieved from

https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/121429.pdf

Depew, D. (2005). Empathy, Psychology, and Aesthetics: Reflections on a Repair Concept.

Poroi, 4(1), 99–107. http://doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1033

Dymond, R. F. (1949). A scale for the measurement of empathic ability. Journal of Consulting

Psychology, 13(2), 127–133. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0061728

Eisenberg, N., Eggum, N. D., & Di Giunta, L. (2010). Empathy-Related Responding:

Associations with Prosocial Behavior, Aggression, and Intergroup Relations. Social Issues

and Policy Review, 4(1), 143–180. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01020.x

Feshbach, N. D., & Roe, K. (1968). Empathy in six- and seve-year-olds. Child Development, 39,

133–145.

Gladkova, a. (2010). Sympathy, Compassion, and Empathy in English and Russian: A Linguistic

and Cultural Analysis. Culture & Psychology, 16(2), 267–285.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X10361396

Gladstein, G. a. (1983). Understanding empathy: Integrating counseling, developmental, and

social psychology perspectives. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(4), 467–482.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.30.4.467

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale.

Journal of Adolescence, 29(4), 589–611. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010

Jonason, P. K., & Krause, L. (2013). The emotional deficits associated with the Dark Triad traits:

Cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and alexithymia. Personality and Individual

Differences, 55(5), 532–537. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.027

Reniers, R. L. E. P., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Völlm, B. a. (2011). The

QCAE: a Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 93(1), 84–95. http://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.528484

Sonnby-Borgström, M., Jönsson, P., & Svensson, O. (2003). Emotional empathy as related to

mimicry reactions at different levels of information processing. Journal of Nonverbal

Behavior, 27(1), 3–23. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023608506243

Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory investigations of empathy. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 271–314). New York: Academic Press.

Terry, C., & Cain, J. (2016). The emerging issue of digital empathy. American Journal of

Pharmaceutical Education, 80(4). http://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe80458