Strengths and Weaknesses of Two Empathy Measures: A Comparison of the Measurement Precision, Construct Validity, and Incremental Validity of Two Multidimensional Indices

Abstract

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.

Trait Autism is a Better Predictor of Empathy than Alexithymia

“…The first issue is that widely-used measures of empathy in ASD research—the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis 1983) and the Empathy Quotient (Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright 2004)—were not designed to dissociate cognitive from affective empathy, and there are longstanding concerns about the IRI’s validity (see Murphy et al 2018). To address this issue, Reniers et al (2011) developed the Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE) by drawing on several empathy measures to create a more robust measure of cognitive, affective, and overall empathy.…”

Empathy Mediates the Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Both Callous and Uncaring Traits

“…Within the current literature, there exists some contradiction as to whether deficits in cognitive empathy do (Anastassiou-Hadjicharalambous, & Warden, 2008;Dadds et al, 2009;Murphy et al, 2018;Pasalich et al, 2014) or do not (Jones et al, 2010;Schwenck et al, 2012;Waller et al, 2016) predict CU traits. Conceptually, intact cognitive empathy is necessary for manipulating others; a key characteristic of psychopathy (Hare, 2003), yet, results of this investigation evidenced inverse relationships between all three CU traits and both cognitive and affective dimensions of empathy.…”

“…Although affective empathy was inversely associated with CU traits through bivariate correlations, its absence of mediation in the relationship between nature connectedness and uncaring traits might be a function of the self-report measure of empathy used. A recent review by Murphy et al (2018) suggests conceptual disparity between the QCAE used in this investigation and alternative measures of affective empathy such as the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983) and the Affective and Cognitive Measure of Empathy (ACME; Vachon & Lynam, 2016). Specifically, the QCAE conceptualises affective empathy in the absence of compassion and empathic concern, and so posits that in order to emotionally resonate with another, one's emotional response must only be interpersonally appropriate, and not similar in form.…”

“…Deficits in empathy are robustly associated with higher levels of CU traits (Muñoz, Qualtar, & Padgett, 2011;Pardini, Lochman, & Frick, 2003). However, although this finding is consistently true for affective empathy, the relationship between CU traits and cognitive empathy is only present in some (Anastassiou-Hadjicharalambous, & Warden, 2008;Dadds et al, 2009;Murphy et al, 2018;Pasalich et al, 2014), but not all (Jones, Happé, Gilbert, Burnett, & Viding, 2010;Schwenck et al, 2012;Waller et al, 2016) investigations. Samples in which deficits in cognitive empathy have been found include children with conduct disorder displaying low, but not high levels of CU traits (Anastassiou-Hadjicharalambous & Warden, 2008) and children before, but not after puberty (Dadds et al, 2009;Pasalich et al, 2014).…”

Altruism and Malevolence: Opposite Ends of a Single Dimension

“…Second, if positive and negative regard for others' welfare really are opposite poles of a single dimension, then researchers should use measures at both ends of the continuum with indifference at the mid-point. For instance, Vachon and Lynam's (2016) Affective and Cognitive Empathy scale measures both empathic concern and schadenfreude, thereby attenuating range restriction and differentiating people who are malevolent rather than merely indifferent towards others (Murphy, Costello, Watts, Cheong, Berg, & Lilienfeld, 2018).…”