It takes two: A replication

Grant, Brett; Fetterman, Zachary; Weyhaupt, Michelle B.; Kim, Minjung; Tullett, Alexa M.

doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.023

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Zaki and colleagues (2008) have shown that affective empathy (as measured by the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES); Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972) is particularly beneficial when targets are especially expressive (cf. Grant et al, 2018). Whether concern is still beneficial under such circumstances remains to be explored in future work.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some investigations have found that aspects of trait empathy are positively related to accurately inferring others' mental and emotional states (Zaki, Bolger, & Ochsner, 2008, 2009. However, other studies have found no relationship (Grant, Fetterman, Weyhaupt, Kim, & Tullett, 2018;Ickes, Stinson, Bissonnette, & Garcia, 1990;Levenson & Ruef, 1992) and occasionally even negative relationships (e.g., Davis & Kraus, 1997;Myers & Hodges, 2009;Phillips, MacLean, & Allen, 2002). This has led some researchers to abandon an approach focused on finding "good judges"-traits or dispositions that predict empathic accuracy-altogether (Ickes, 2016;Ickes et al, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, target expressivity—that is, the extent to which the social cues received from another person are strong, unambiguous, and relatively easy to read—may be just as important as perceiver ability. Zaki and colleagues (2008, 2009) have found that measures of affective empathy interact with the expressivity of a target to predict accuracy: when target expressivity was high, trait affective empathy conferred an advantage, but it was relatively less beneficial when target expressivity was low (but see Grant et al, 2018 for a recent failure to replicate this result in a preregistered design using a different measure of trait empathy).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Opposing contributions of psychologically distinct components of empathy to empathic accuracy.

Mayukha

Andrade

Cone

2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is it that provides us an accurate window into the thoughts and feelings of others? Although, intuitively, it might seem as though trait empathy would enhance this ability, research has produced decidedly mixed results, ultimately failing to uncover robust, systematic relationships between the two. Recent research has suggested, however, that different facets of empathy—emotional contagion, on the one hand, and empathic concern, on the other—are psychologically distinct and result in different behavioral tendencies (Jordan, Amir, & Bloom, 2016). In 5 preregistered studies involving nearly 2,600 participants, we assessed the opposing contributions of these distinct facets of empathy to empathic accuracy. We found that whereas trait concern is beneficial to empathic accuracy, trait contagion is, paradoxically, detrimental. These patterns emerged across 4 different measures of empathic accuracy that involve emotional and mental states communicated through the eyes (Study 1), paralinguistic cues in the voice (Study 2), facial expressions (Studies 2 and 4), and cues presented during a mock interview (Study 3). Moreover, in Study 4, we identified rational thinking style as a mechanism for these opposing effects. Whereas those who exhibit contagion tend to be less rational, those who exhibit concern tend to be more rational. These differences in cognitive style mediate the opposing relationships of contagion and concern with interpersonal accuracy. Our studies thus highlight the value of empirically separating psychologically distinct facets of empathy to more accurately characterize their independent contributions to interpersonal processes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Opposing contributions of psychologically distinct components of empathy to empathic accuracy.

Mayukha

Andrade

Cone

2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8,25 After Zaki et al 25 proposed the EAT, many studies have utilized this paradigm to assess EA. 8,23,[26][27][28][29] However, they had introduced variations such as incorporation of negative emotions beyond sadness 23,29 and in the number of video clips (12 to 40) and duration of the videos (28 to 158 seconds), limiting the reproducibility and validity of their findings. Most of these studies had limited validation for these adaptations in accordance with the recommendations for validation of an adapted scale.…”

Section: Original Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

Empathic Accuracy Task: Indian Adaptation and Validation

Sinha

Mehta

S.N.

et al. 2023

Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Empathic Accuracy Task (EAT) is an objective measure to assess empathic accuracy. Due to the variability in the number and linked emotions of the narrated events, we adapted EAT for the Indian sociocultural setting as Indian EAT (I-EAT). Methods: Eight videos were adapted in three languages (English, Hindi, and Kannada), narrating emotional events with a uniform representation of age groups, different emotions, and sex. The adapted I-EAT was then validated by cross-sectional comparison with different tests similar to EAT and those that assessed concepts different from or similar to empathy, in 29 healthy young adults, 23 healthy older adults (aged ≥60 years) along with clinical groups of 15 young people with depression, 15 older people with depression, and 15 young people with schizophrenia. Results: We selected eight videos with good content validity and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73. We obtained satisfactory concurrent validity of the EAT scores with the self-reported empathic assessments using the Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (Cognitive empathy score = 0.29, p = .034; Total score = 0.29, p = .035) and Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Empathic concern score = 0.45, p = .001). Good divergent validity was revealed in the high inverse correlation recorded with the Apathy Evaluation Scale ( = –0.67, p < .001). I-EAT did not correlate significantly with measures of social cognition. Known-groups validity was adequate in young adults with the significantly lower EAT scores (Cohen’s d: 0.77 to 1.15) in the Schizophrenia group and higher EAT-N scores (Cohen’s d: 0.51) in the Depression group, compared to the Healthy group. The Healthy group of the geriatric population also achieved significantly higher EAT scores (Cohen’s d: 0.71 to 0.85) than the Depression group. Conclusion: With a good validity and internal consistency, I-EAT can be used in the Indian population to assess empathic accuracy without compromising performance of the original EAT.

show abstract

“…Studies on the effect of information modality show that verbal cues are generally more important than nonverbal cues in this regard (Hall & Schmid Mast, 2007; Zaki et al, 2009). Indeed, research shows that targets whose thoughts and feelings are rated as more expressive by observers are “read” with greater empathic accuracy (Marangoni et al, 1995; Thomas & Maio, 2008; Zaki et al, 2009; but see Grant et al, 2018). In this line of research, the target’s expressivity is assumed to be a relatively stable individual difference, typically calculated by an overall empathic accuracy score across the interaction (e.g., Human & Biesanz, 2013).…”

Section: Empathic Accuracy and Target Expressivitymentioning

confidence: 99%