Motor, affective and cognitive empathy in adolescence: Interrelations between facial electromyography and self-reported trait and state measures

Abstract

This study examined interrelations of trait and state empathy in an adolescent sample. Self-reported affective trait empathy and cognitive trait empathy were assessed during a home visit. During a test session at the university, motor empathy (facial electromyography), and self-reported affective and cognitive state empathy were assessed in response to empathy-inducing film clips portraying happiness and sadness. Adolescents who responded with stronger motor empathy consistently reported higher affective state empathy. Adolescents' motor empathy was also positively related to cognitive state empathy, either directly or indirectly via affective state empathy. Whereas trait empathy was consistently, but modestly, related to state empathy with sadness, for state empathy with happiness few trait-state associations were found. Together, the findings provide support for the notion that empathy is a multi-faceted phenomenon. Motor, affective and cognitive empathy seem to be related processes, each playing a different role in the ability to understand and share others' feelings.

A Longitudinal Study on the Effects of Parental Monitoring on Adolescent Antisocial Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Adolescent Empathy

“…On the other hand, state (but not trait) dimensions of empathy moderated the impact of parental solicitation on antisocial behaviors. When compared to trait empathy self-report measures, our measures of state empathy are less likely to be influenced by social desirability and self-presentational biases (Van der Graaff et al, 2016). Moreover, whereas the trait empathy measures tap into adolescents’ empathic tendency, or their general motivation to respond with empathy, the state empathy measures assess adolescents’ actual empathic responsiveness as evoked by real life emotional situations.…”

“…In this way, we could highlight the specific role played by trait and state dimensions, considering both cognitive and affective facets. Since most of these dimensions of empathy are modestly related (Van der Graaff et al, 2016) future studies could further advance this line of research adopting a person-centered approach to distinguish adolescents with distinct empathy profiles (e.g., adolescents high in trait but low in state empathy). Doing so, it would be possible to test if and how associations between parental monitoring and adolescent antisocial behaviors are moderated by empathy profiles.…”

“…Previous research revealed modest interrelations between these different dimensions of empathy (Van der Graaff et al, 2016) and suggested that different empathy dimensions can carry diverse implications for adolescents’ social functioning, including antisocial behaviors (van Noorden et al, 2015). For instance, previous correlational (e.g., Jolliffe and Farrington, 2011), longitudinal (e.g., Batanova and Loukas, 2014), and experimental (e.g., Edele et al, 2013) studies indicated that affective empathy might be more relevant than cognitive empathy in explaining youth behaviors.…”

“…In line with recent developments of the empathy literature (e.g., Decety and Cowell, 2014; Van der Graaff et al, 2016), we tested for the moderating effects of trait and state dimensions of empathy considering both empathic concern and perspective taking. More specifically, as schematized in Figure 1 , we investigated whether the effects of parental control and solicitation reported by fathers and mothers at T1 (when adolescents were 17-year-old) were differently related to relative changes (controlled for prior levels) in adolescent antisocial behaviors at T2 (1 year later, when adolescents were 18-year-old), for different levels of adolescent empathy at T1.…”

The effects of age, gender, and gender role ideology on adolescents’ social perspective-taking ability and tendency in friendships

“…The current study tests the relation between SPT ability and SPT tendency among a larger, more representative sample of adolescents with no such selection criteria. Following the distinction made between maximum and typical performance (Sackett et al, 1988) and evidence from the previous studies (Gehlbach et al, 2012;Van der Graaff et al, 2015), we hypothesized that SPT ability and SPT tendency would be distinct.…”