Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Conceptualising and Measuring Empathy
Conceptualising and Measuring Empathy
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The British Journal of Social Work
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
British Journal of Social Work (2010) 40, 2326-2343
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq048
Advance Access publication March 31, 2010
Karen E. Gerdes is an Associate Professor in the School of Social Work at Arizona State
University. Elizabeth A. Segal is a Professor in the School of Social Work at Arizona State
University . Cynthia A. Lietz is an Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work at
Arizona State University .
*Correspondence to Dr Karen E. Gerdes, 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, AZ
85022, USA
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to briefly review the most influential existing literature on
conceptualizing and measuring empathy. In addition, we consider a second, highly
salient body of literature emerging from the relatively new field of social cognitive
neuroscience, which uses brain imaging to help identify the physiological components
of emotional and cognitive processes. We believe that social cognitive neuroscience
can assist social work in clarifying concrete, consistent ways of defining and measuring
empathy as a neurological phenomenon. Finally, we assess some of the most recent
social work-related empirical intervention-based research on empathy. Combining all
these research traditions leads to a compelling possibility: a unified, consistent, and
robust way to define and measure the empathie responses that help form the foun-
dation of just and beneficent social structures.
Keywords: Empathy, affect sharing, black and ethnic minority, perspective taking,
measurement
Introduction
The idea that empathy is essential for effective social work practice is
commonly accepted within the profession (Shulman, 2009; Hepworth et al .,
2009). Despite the significance of empathy to social work and related
fields, there is a long history of dissimilar and often vague definitions of
empathy in the literature. Some consider empathy a dispositional trait or
ability (Hoffman, 1982). Other researchers see empathy as a situation-
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Conceptualising and Measuring Empathy 2327
specific cognitive -affective state (Duan and Hill, 1996). Still others define
empathy as a multi-stage interpersonal process (Reik, 1948; Rogers, 1975).
In addition to a multitude of definitions, different researchers have
employed a host of disparate ways to measure empathy (Pederson, 2009).
A review of the literature pertaining to empathy reveals that as a result of
these inconsistencies, conceptualisations and measurement techniques for
empathy vary so widely that it is difficult to engage in meaningful compari-
sons or make significant conclusions about how we define and measure
this key component of human behaviour- necessary steps if social work
practitioners are to cultivate empathy in ourselves and others (Pithers, 1999).
The purpose of this article is to briefly review the most influential existing
literature on conceptualising and measuring empathy. In addition, we consider
a second, highly salient body of literature emerging from the relatively new
field of social cognitive neuroscience, which uses brain imaging to help identify
the physiological components of emotional and cognitive processes. We
believe that social cognitive neuroscience can assist social work in clarifying
concrete, consistent ways of defining and measuring empathy as a neurological
phenomenon. Finally, we assess some of the most recent social work-related
empirical intervention-based research on empathy. Combining all these
research traditions leads to a compelling possibility: a unified, consistent
and robust way to define and measure the empathie responses that help
form the foundation of just and beneficent social structures.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2328 Karen E. Gerdes et al.
During the 1980s and 1990s, social and developmental psychologists, such as
C. Daniel Batson, Martin Hoffman and Nancy Eisenberg, strongly influenced
the empathy dialogue. The literature from this period reveals a broad assump-
tion that empathy is one individual feeling the inner experience of another.
This perspective suggested empathy has two major components: (i) the phys-
iological experience of feeling what another person is feeling (Batson, 1987),
often referred to as 'motor mimicry'; and (ii) the cognitive processing of these
feelings (Hoffman, 2000). In addition, Batson et al. (1997) clarified the role of
the cognitive skill 'self-other awareness' in the empathie experience. By
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Conceptualising and Measuring Empathy 2329
contrast, Eisenberg et al. (1994) and Gross (1998) connected the importance
of the cognitive skill of emotion regulation to empathie accuracy.
Cognitive processing includes rational analysis of one's own empathy,
and is necessary for intellectual practices such as perspective taking, role
taking, conditioning and social learning. Hoffman's (1984) model of
empathy views empathy as progressing along a developmental continuum:
infants mimic emotion through physical mirroring, with virtually no cogni-
tive processing. Later, they gradually develop the ability to take on other
roles and imagine the feelings of others. If development is normal and suc-
cessful, the 'cognitive processing' facet of empathy eventually emerges.
Levenson and Ruef (1992) identified three different qualities of empathy in
the literature: (i) knowing (cognitive) what a person is feeling (e.g. Ickes et al.,
1990); (ii) feeling (affective) what another person is feeling (e.g. Mehrabian
and Epstein, 1972); and (iii) responding compassionately to another
person's distress (e.g. Coke et al., 1978). The first two are subjective qualities,
which are notoriously hard to measure, while the third- compassionate
action- can be objectively observed. All three, however, facilitate empathie
accuracy or 'the ability to detect accurately the emotional information trans-
mitted by another person' (Levenson and Ruef, 1992, p. 234). The Social Work
Dictionary incorporates these ideas, defining empathy as 'the act of perceiv-
ing, understanding, experiencing, and responding to the emotional state and
ideas of another person' (Barker, 2008, p. 141).
Self-awareness
Batson et al. (1997) highlighted the empathy debate between social psychol-
ogists and others over the relative importance of 'self-other merging' and
'self-other distinctiveness' or awareness. Hornstein (1978) and Lerner
(1980), among others, argued that self-other merging increases empathy
because of the confusion it creates between self and other, which yields
an empathically accurate 'mutual identification'. On the other hand,
Hoffman (1975) and, more recently, de Waal (1996) argued that self-
other distinctiveness is critical to empathy, because it allows one to recog-
nise the particularity and uniqueness of the other. Wispe (1986) argued that
'the attempt by one self-aware self to comprehend unjudgmentally the
positive and negative experiences of another self' (Wispe, 1986, p. 318) is
essential to empathie accuracy. Batson et al. (1997) own research supported
the self-other awareness or distinctiveness hypothesis.
Emotion regulation
The independent research domain of emotion regulation was the last and
most recent psychological construct of the twentieth century to be
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2330 Karen E. Gerdes et al.
Recent research in the field of psychology provides strong support for the
cultural equivalency theory of emotion recognition or affective sharing
(Soto and Levenson, 2009). In short, this model suggests we evolved to
be equally accurate in recognising emotions in others, regardless of
culture, race or ethnicity. The underlying assumption of this model is that
the ability to accurately perceive, interpret and respond to the emotional
signals of others is necessary for our survival (Preston and de Waal, 2002).
Attachment theory informs us that nurture also plays a critical role in the
development of empathy (Masur, 2009). However, attachment theory and its
implications are also recognizably the same across cultures (van Ijzendoorn
and Sagi, 1999). The cultural equivalence model does little to help us under-
stand the cross-cultural context for the cognitive aspects of empathy- a very
important discussion that is beyond the scope of this article.
In sum, there seems to be a growing level of agreement in the social
science literature regarding the importance of empathie accuracy, and the
belief that empathy includes both an automatic physiological reaction
(affective sharing) and the cognitive process of perspective taking
(Spreng et al ., 2009; Jolliffe and Farrington, 2006; Lawrence et al ., 2004;
Duan and Hill, 1996; Ickes et al ., 1990). Some authors have suggested
that other cognitive skills such as self-awareness (Corcoran, 1982; Wispe,
1986; Batson et al ., 1997) and emotion regulation (Eisenberg et al , 1994;
Gross, 1998) are also critical to the experience of empathy.
During the mid 1990s and 2000s, the investigation of empathy expanded to
include research on the neurobiology of empathy. A pivotal breakthrough
occurred one day in 1992, when three researchers in Parma, Italy, decided
to have lunch in the lab where they were studying the firing of motor
neurons in laboratory monkeys (Iacoboni, 2008). The researchers were
startled to observe that when the animals watched the humans eat, the
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Conceptualising and Measuring Empathy 2331
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2332 Karen E. Gerdes et al.
Even for most academics, reading the brain studies from the social cognitive
neuroscience literature is a daunting task because of the technical medical
and neuro-anatomy language. However, the profession's conceptualisation
of empathy and how we measure it could be more clear and consistent if we
are able to incorporate the new neuroscientific findings. Indeed, research-
ers approaching the concept of empathy from a neurological standpoint
have already made observations that could be easily incorporated into
every social science discipline. The existing views of empathy in social
work could utilise this research both to answer some basic questions and
to serve as a foundation for extensive future research.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Conceptualising and Measuring Empathy 2333
For example, in a 2009 study, Zaki et al. used /MRI imaging to see what
was happening in the brains of individuals as they watched videos of other
people describing highly emotional events in their own lives. These
viewers were also asked to rate what they thought the interview subjects
were feeling as they told their stories. The researchers found heightened
activity in two specific areas of the brain- one that 'mirrored' the storytel-
lers being watched on videotape and another that appeared to be respon-
sible for cognitively processing and articulating a description of the
storytellers' feelings. This brain activity was found to be correlated with
the subjective feelings of the video viewers. To determine whether they
were truly experiencing empathy, rather than simple projection, the
viewers' impressions of the storytellers' emotions was compared to the
self-reports of the people who were interviewed (they were asked to
watch their own videotaped performances and report what emotions
they had felt as they told the stories).
This was one of the first studies that cross-checked and internally vali-
dated three different phenomena: the subjective experience of people
telling an emotional autobiographical story; the empathie response of
people watching the storytellers; and the brain activity of the story
viewers. By comparing all three, Zaki et al. were able to confirm a statisti-
cally significant correlation between phenomenological empathy, empathie
accuracy and brain activity in specific areas of the brain. This study suggests
that brain activity can be used as an empirical measure of affective sharing
and cognitive processing, and that 'accurate' empathy may be physically
differentiated from projection or other emotional reactions.
Though this is technical work, requiring the skills of neuroanatomists and
/MRI operators, as well as social scientists, such a valuable trove of evidence
is certainly worth bridging the gap between disciplines, allowing social work
theorists to form more valid, robust and empirical models of empathy.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2334 Karen E. Gerdes et al.
measuring sympathy (Wispe, 1986; Eisenberg and Strayer, 1987). The con-
clusion is virtually unanimous that construct validity requires an agreed
upon definition and consistent measurement procedures that have not yet
been achieved (Wispe, 1986).
The purpose of our review of the measurement literature is not to repeat,
summarise or dispute the findings of any of the above-named authors. It is
designed to (i) describe how the measurement literature has paralleled the
conceptualisation literature; (ii) review some of the most recent empirical
social work research on empathy that has not been included in past
reviews; and (iii) evaluate whether the measures that have been developed
incorporate or include the four components of empathy identified by
Decety and Moriguchi (2007) (i.e. affect sharing, mental flexibility and
perspective taking, self-awareness and emotion regulation).
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Conceptualising and Measuring Empathy 2335
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2336 Karen E. Gerdes et al.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Conceptualising and Measuring Empathy 2337
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2338 Karen E. Gerdes et al.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Conceptualising and Measuring Empathy 2339
existing research parameters in a way that could enrich social work in both
theory and practice.
The self-report measure we have proposed could assess our clients'
strengths and target empathy interventions in areas that need development.
It could yield methods of evaluating, quantifying and increasing empathy
that would potentially benefit both social workers in the field and clients.
Social work would be well served by embracing a clarity and consistency
in both the conceptualisation and measurement of empathy. These tasks
should be at the forefront of social work research over the next decade.
As a final point, the ethical use of a self-report or standardised empathy
measure is also of critical importance to us. We would not recommend the
practice of using an empathy score as an admission criterion to a school of
social work or as an isolated tool leading to decision making in practice.
Such decisions should be informed by a broad assessment of one's function-
ing, not based on one instrument, even one that is standardised. Addition-
ally, conceptualisations of empathy discussed in this article suggest empathy
can be developed over time. Although we suggest measuring empathy at
one point in time, that should not be the only criterion to inform decision
making; a standardised tool can be used to measure empathy before and
after interventions or educational experiences. This would allow research-
ers and practitioners to evaluate the effects of strategies used to cultivate
affective and cognitive empathie abilities.
Conclusion
References
Barker, R. L. (2008) The Social Work Dictionary , Washington, DC, NASW Press.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1962) 'Dimensions of therapy response as causal factors in thera-
peutic change', Psychological Monographs , 78, pp. 1-33.
Batson, C. D. (1987) 'Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct, vicarious
emotions with different motivational consequences', Journal of Personality , 55(1),
pp. 19-39.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2340 Karen E. Gerdes et al.
Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harreil, K. L., Peekna, H. M. and Todd, R. M.
(1991) 'Empathie joy and empathy-altruism hypothesis', Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology , 61(3), pp. 413-26.
Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K. and Dawson, K. (1997) 'Is
empathy-induced helping due to self- other merging?', Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology , 73(3), pp. 495-509.
Bavolek, S. J. and Keene, R. G. (2001) Adult- Adolescent Parenting Inventory AAPl-2:
Administration and Development Handbook , Park City, UT, Family Development
Resources, Inc.
Bryant, B. (1982) 'An index of empathy for children and adolescents', Child Develop-
ment, 53, pp. 413-25.
Bryant, B. K. (1987) 'Mental health, temperament, family, and friends: Perspectives on
children's empathy and social perspective taking', in Eisenberg, N. and Strayer, J.
(eds), Empathy and its Development: Cambridge Studies in Social and Emotional
Development , New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 245-70.
Carkhuff, R. R. (1969) Helping and Human Relations (Vols. 1 and 2 ), New York, Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Conceptualising and Measuring Empathy 2341
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Maszk, P., Smith, M., O'Boyle, C.
and Suh, K. (1994) 'The relations of emotionality and regulation to dispositional and
situation empathy-related responding', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,
66(4), pp. 776-97.
Freud, S. (1921) Group Psychology and the Analysis of Ego, London, Hogarth.
Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L. and Rizzolatti, G. (1996) 'Action recognition in the
premotor cortex', Brain , 119(2), pp. 593-609.
Gerdes, K. E. and Segal, E. A. (2010) 'The importance of empathy for social work prac-
tice: Integrating new science', Social Work , in press.
Goldstein, G. A. and Michaels, G. Y. (1985) Empathy: Development, Training , and Con-
sequences , Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.
Gough, H. G. (1978) California Psychological Inventory Administrator's Guide , Palo
Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists Press
Gross, J. J. (1998) 'The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review',
Review of General Psychology , 2(3), pp. 271-99.
Grskovic, J. A. and Goetze, H. (2008) 'Short-term filial therapy with German mothers:
Findings from a controlled study', International Journal of Play Therapy , 17(1),
pp. 39-51.
Hackney, H. L. (1978) 'The evolution of empathy', Personnel and Guidance Journal , 57,
pp. 35-8.
Hart, C. (2008) 'Affective association: An effective intervention in encountering frag-
mentation and dissociation', Journal of Child Psychology , 34(2), pp. 259-77.
Hepworth, D., Rooney, R., Rooney, G. D., Strom-Gottfried, K. and Larsen, J. (2009)
Direct Social Work Practice: Theory and Skills , Belmont, CA, Thomson.
Hoffman, M. L. (1975) 'Developmental synthesis of affect and cognition and its impli-
cations for altruistic motivation', Developmental Psychology , 11, pp. 607-22.
Hoffman, M. L. (1977) 'Empathy, its development and prosocial implications', in Howe,
H. E., Jr and Keasey, C. B. (eds), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation , Vol. 25,
Lincoln, Universitv of Nebraska Press, dd. 169-218.
Hoffman, M. L. (1982) 'Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy and guilt', in
Eisenberg, N. (ed.), The Development of Prosocial Behavior , New York, Academic
Press, pp. 281-313.
Hoffman, M. L. (1984) 'Interaction of affect and cognition in empathy', in Izard, C. E.,
Kagan, J. and Zajonc, R. B. (eds), Emotions , Cognition, and Behavior , Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, pp. 103-31.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000) Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and
Justice , New York, Cambridge University Press.
Hogan, K. (19Ò9) Development ot an empathy scale , Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology , 33(3), pp. 307-16.
Hornstein, H. A. (1978) 'Promotive tension and prosocial behavior: A Lewinian analy-
sis', in Wispe, L. (ed.), Altruism, Sympathy, and Helping: Psychological and Sociologi-
cal Principles , New York, Academic Press, pp. 177-207.
Iacoboni, M. (2008) Mirroring People : The New Science of How We Connect with Others ,
New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Ickes, W. (1997) Empathie Accuracy , New York, Guilford.
Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V. and Garcia, S. (1990) 'Naturalistic social cognition:
Empathie accuracy in mixed-sex dyads', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,
59(4), pp. 730-42.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2342 Karen E. Gerdes et al.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Conceptualising and Measuring Empathy 2343
Raines, J. C. (1990) 'Empathy in clinical social work', Clinical Social Work Journal ,
18(1), pp. 57-71.
Rameson, L. and Lieberman, M. (2009) 'Empathy: A social cognitive neuroscience
approach', Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 3(1), pp. 94-110.
Reik, T. (1948) Listening with the Third Ear , New York, Grove Press.
Reynolds, W. J., Scott, B. and Jessiman, W. C. (1999) 'Empathy has not been measured in
clients' terms or effectively taught: A review of the literature', Journal of Advanced
Nursing , 30(5), pp. 1177-85.
Rizzolatti, G. and Craighero, L. (2004) 'The mirror neuron system', Annual Review of
Neuroscience , 27, pp. 169-92.
Rogers, C. (1957) 'The necessary and sufficient conditions for therapeutic personality
change', Journal of Consulting Psychology , 21, pp. 95-103.
Rogers, C. (1975) 'Empathie: An unappreciated way of being', The Counseling Psychol-
ogist , 5(2), pp. 2-10.
Shulman, L. (2009) The Skills of Helping Individuals , Families , Groups , and Commu-
nities , 6th edn, Florence, KY, Cengage.
Soto, J. A. and Levenson, R. W. (2009) 'Emotion recognition across cultures: The
influence of ethnicity on empathie accuracy and physiological linkage', Emotion ,
9(6), pp. 874-84.
Spreng, R. N., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A. and 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(1), pp. 62-71.
Sprinkle, J. E. (2008) 'Animals, empathy, and violence: Can animals be used to convey
principles of prosocial behavior to children', Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice ,
6(1), pp. 47-58.
Tamburrino, M. B. (1993) 'Evaluating empathy in interviewing: Comparing self-report
with actual behavior', Teaching and Learning in Medicine , 5(4), pp. 217-20.
Titchener, E. (1909) Elementary Psychology of the Thought Processes , New York,
Macmillan.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.56 on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 06:28:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms