Empathy is widely regarded as relevant to a diverse range of psychopathological constructs, such as autism spectrum disorder, psychopathy, and borderline personality disorder. Cognitive empathy (CE) is the ability to accurately recognize or infer the thoughts and feelings of others. Although behavioral task paradigms are frequently used to assess such abilities, a large proportion of published studies reporting on CE use self-report questionnaires. For decades, however, a number of theorists have cautioned that individuals may not possess the metacognitive insight needed to validly gauge their own mindreading abilities. To investigate this possibility, we examined the aggregate relations between behavioral CE task performance and self-report CE scale scores, as well as with self-report affective empathy scale scores for comparison. Meta-analytic results, based on random effects models, from 85 studies (total N ϭ 14,327) indicate that self-report CE scores account for only approximately 1% of the variance in behavioral cognitive empathy assessments and that, perhaps equally importantly, this relation is not significantly different from that demonstrated by affective empathy scores. Effect sizes were not moderated by self-report empathy domain, gender composition, unisensory versus multisensory behavioral stimuli presentation, child versus adult samples, or by normative versus clinical/forensic samples. Effect size estimates were not markedly affected by publication bias. These results raise serious concerns regarding the widespread use of self-report CE scores as proxies for CE ability, as well as the extensive theoretical conclusions that have been based on their use in past studies. Public Significance StatementThe accumulated evidence indicates that self-report questionnaires are not a trustworthy method for assessing an individual's cognitive empathy abilities. Researchers and clinicians should avoid relying upon them, until and unless adequate evidence is produced demonstrating their validity when used for this purpose.
The quality of empathy research, and clinical assessment, hinges on the validity and proper interpretation of the measures used to assess the construct. This study investigates, in an online sample of 401 adult community participants, the construct validity of the Affective and Cognitive Measure of Empathy (ACME) relative to that of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), the most widely used multidimensional empathy research measure. We investigated the factor structures of both measures, as well as their measurement precision across varying trait levels. We also examined them both in relation to convergent and discriminant criteria, including broadband personality dimensions, general emotionality, personality disorder features, and interpersonal malignancy. Our findings suggest that the ACME possesses incremental validity beyond the IRI for most constructs related to interpersonal malignancy. Our results further indicate that the IRI Personal Distress scale is severely deficient in construct validity, raising serious concerns regarding past findings that have included it when computing total empathy scores. Finally, our results indicate that both questionnaires display poor measurement precision at high trait levels, emphasizing the need for future researchers to develop indices that can reliably measure high levels of empathy.
Personality disorders have long been bedeviled by a host of conceptual and methodological quandaries. Starting from the assumption that personality disorders are inherently interpersonal conditions that reflect folk concepts of social impairment, the authors contend that a subset of personality disorders, rather than traditional syndromes, are emergent interpersonal syndromes (EISs): interpersonally malignant configurations (statistical interactions) of distinct personality dimensions that may be only modestly, weakly, or even negatively correlated. Preliminary support for this perspective derives from a surprising source, namely, largely forgotten research on the intercorrelations among the subscales of select MMPI/MMPI-2 clinical scales. Using psychopathic personality as a case example, the authors offer provisional evidence for the EIS hypothesis from four lines of research and delineate its implications for personality disorder theory, research, and classification. Conceptualizing some personality disorders as EISs elucidates long-standing quandaries and controversies in the psychopathology literature and affords fruitful avenues for future investigation.
While the relationship between psychopathic personality traits and substance use has received some attention (Hart & Hare, 1989; Smith & Newman, 1990), gender differences have not been thoroughly assessed. The current study examined whether gender modified the relationship between two criminally-relevant constructs, a) psychopathy and its factors and b) drug use. A sample of 318 participants with criminal histories and recent substance use was assessed for psychopathy using the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version and for illicit drug use using the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. As expected, the impulsive-antisocial traits (Factor 2) of psychopathy were positively related to a number of drug use characteristics (symptoms, age of drug initiation, extent of drug experimentation), whereas the interpersonal-affective traits (Factor 1) showed a negative relationship with drug abuse symptoms and a positive relationship with age of first use. In terms of gender differences, analyses revealed that women showed a stronger association between Factor 1 traits and later age of initiation compared to men, and that Factor 2, and antisocial facet in particular, were more strongly related to drug abuse in women than men. These findings suggest that psychopathic traits serve as both protective (Factor 1) and risk (Factor 2) correlates of illicit drug use, and in women, Factor 1 may be especially protective in terms of initiation. These conclusions add to the growing literature on potential routes to substance use and incarceration in women.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.