Empathy: Let's Get The Hell On With It

Aspy, David N.

doi:10.1177/001100007500500203

Cited by 23 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, individuals using messages projecting greater concern for and involvement with another should be more positively evaluated than individuals using messages projecting less concern and involvement. This interpretation is consistent with the results of several studies conducted in clinical contexts indicating that therapists who employ empathic, feeling-centered messages are more positively evaluated by both clients and other professionals (e.g., Aspy, 1975;Rogers, 1975;Truax & Carkhuff, 1967).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Comforting conversations: The effects of strategy type on evaluations of messages and message producers

Samter

Burleson

Murphy

1987

Southern Speech Communication Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Comforting conversations: The effects of strategy type on evaluations of messages and message producers

Samter

Burleson

Murphy

1987

Southern Speech Communication Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Consistent with the preceding conceptual analysis of the functional qualities of formally more sophisticated comforting messages, many researchers have found that highly empathie messages-those conveying greater involvement with and acceptance of the other and his or her feelings-are preferred by and elicit more favorable responses from diverse populations (see the reviews of Aspy, 1975;Bochner & Kelly, 1974;Rogers, 1961Rogers, , 1975Truax & Carkhuff, 1967;Wiemann, 1977). Thus, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that relatively sophisticated comforting strategies will be functionally evaluated by naive actors more positively than less sophisticated comforting strategies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 56%

Consistencies in theoretical and naive evaluations of comforting messages

Burleson

Samter

1985

Communication Monographs

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior research on comforting communication from the constructivist perspective has employed a hierarchical system of message analysis to classify different comforting strategies; within this system, messages are scored for the extent to which they explicitly acknowledge, elaborate, and legitimize the feelings of distressed others. The present paper reports two studies assessing the extent to which naive actors' perceptions of comforting strategy sensitivity, effectiveness, and quality correspond with the formal analysis of comforting strategy sophistication embedded in the constructivist hierarchical coding scheme. In the first study, 73 female college students interacted with a female confederate who feigned distress over having recently been dropped by her long-term boyfriend. These interactions were videotaped and content analyzed; in addition, both the confederate and an experimental observer rated participants' behaviors for sensitivity. Results indicated that participants employing a greater proportion of theoretically sophisticated comforting strategies were perceived as behaving more sensitively toward the confederate. In the second study, 148 college students were presented with lists of preformulated comforting strategies derived from the constructivist hierarchy and were asked to rate these strategies for "sensitivity" and "effectiveness" and to rank order them in terms of overall quality. Results indicated that respondents rated and rank ordered the strategies in a manner very consistent with the constructivist hierarchical ordering of comforting strategy types: The constructivist ordering of the strategies explained over 95% of the variance in respondents' ratings and rank orderings.

show abstract

“…There was no evidence that data from different sources, gathered in different ways, provide the same or similar meanings of the construct. This underscores the confusion in the literature concerning attempts to define empathy (Aspy, 1975;Bachrach, 1976; Becker & Meyers, 1974; Beres & Arlow, 1974; Conklin & Hunt, 1975;Gladstein, 1977;Hackney, 1978;Hogan, 1975;Iannotti, 1975; Keefe, 1976Keefe, , 1977 Rogers, 1975;Rotenberg, 1974;Shapiro, 1974;Stark, 1977;Stetler, 1977;Szalita, 1976;Wasmuth, 1978). It follows that if empathy cannot be defined dialectically, there will be continued confusion over how it is measured and whether it has positive effects on the patients/clients outcome.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Construct validity of an empathy instrument

Monica

1981

Research in Nursing & Health

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the study was to determine the construct validity of the Empathy Construct Rating Scale (ECRS), developed as part of a larger investigation. Two procedures were used: (a) Campbell and Fiske's (1959) multitrait- multimethod approach and (b) factor analysis. The results suggest that the ECRS is a valid and a reliable instrument for measuring empathy. It was shown to have high internal consistency, content validity, and discriminant validity. Results of the factor analysis placed the rating scale in the primary factor, sharing that factor with no other measured trait. The results further suggest that empathy cannot be divided meaningfully into subscales; empathy exists as a whole and all elements must be present in the relationship for it to exist.

show abstract

Empathy: Let's Get The Hell On With It

Cited by 23 publications

References 0 publications

Comforting conversations: The effects of strategy type on evaluations of messages and message producers

Comforting conversations: The effects of strategy type on evaluations of messages and message producers

Consistencies in theoretical and naive evaluations of comforting messages

Construct validity of an empathy instrument

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About