Assessing Empathy in

Children

Ashley Raucci
Department of Kinesiology

Spring 2018

Dr. Hester Henderson, Dr. Maria Newton, Markell McCubbin

1
Introduction

Empathy is a basic human capacity that is important in daily social life (Reiffe,

2010). It refers to the ability to respond effectively to emotions in others, aiming at

reacting adaptively to another’s needs. Decety & Jackson (2004) suggest that empathy is

supporting and consoling the emotional needs of another person.

At Children’s Synergistic Learning Collaborative (CSLC) in Salt Lake City,

students are taught and encouraged to see others through an empathic lens. The

environment at this center is truly inclusive. The students range in age from 3-12 years

old and have a wide variety of abilities; there are somestudents with Down syndrome,

Autism Spectrum Disorder, speech and language delays, attention deficit disorders, etc.

The core of CSLC’s curriculum includes project-based learning in which they

cooperatively share ideas and solve problems in the same environment. CSLC has built

the framework of their approach around developing the empathy, among many other

traits and values, based on explicit teaching, guidance, and opportunities for practice.

However, there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate whether their approach to

develop empathy is successful. CSLC intends to document and track empathy of its

students and observe empathic development over time.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to measure empathy in the students at CSLC and to

compare their levels of empathy with students in another program to determine if

children who are placed in an inclusive learning environment where empathy is a focus of

the curriculum are more empathetic than peers in an inclusive learning environment

where empathy is not an explicit part of the curriculum.

2
 Review of Literature

Empathy

Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Deficits in

empathy can play a critical role in the development of externalizing behavior and other

behavior problems (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). In an article by Kalisch in 1973,

empathy and its definitions are discussed, specifically regarding empathy in nurses

toward their patients. Empathy must involve understanding the current feelings of another

person, not their feelings of yesterday (Kalisch 1973). An interesting point Kalisch made

was that empathic understanding is not a passive process and will not happen without

effort. Thus, it must be learned, practiced, and reinforced for it to become a positive and

effective trait in another human being. Empathy is a difficult and complex goal to

achieve. The author discusses how individuals trying to convey or show empathy usually

try to give advice on an issue at hand. While individuals may think giving advice is a

helpful and an empathic gesture, it more represents personal gain because it feels good to

help people (Kalisch, 1973). Instead of solving problems for other people and providing

solutions, a truly empathic person feels the pain another individual is going through.

Inclusive Environments

Inclusion is the term used for learning environments that fit the needs of all

individuals of varying abilities. Typically, schools’ separate classrooms by age/grade

and/or ability levels. General education classrooms contain typically developing students

with no recognized disability that inhibits learning or learning ability. These non-

3
inclusive classrooms are also being referred to as segregated classrooms. Some children

who are in special education classrooms (self-contained classrooms), might be selected to

be mainstreamed into general education classes on a part time basis in the hopes that they

can successfully transition to general education classes full time later in their primary or

secondary education. Inclusive classrooms, like CSLC, are environments where students

with and without disabilities work side-by-side in a collaborative manner.

Children may find difficulty learning at school for a plethora of reasons, but they need the

same motivators for learning which are interest, self-respect, confidence, freedom from

worry, and a warm and patient teacher. In short, they need inclusion to a welcoming

learning environment that builds social connection and community (Thomas & Loxely,

2007),

Several researchers found that prerequisites for empathy, such as emotion

recognition and regulation, were delayed in children who are deaf and hard of hearing

(DHH) (Bachara, Raphael, & Phelan, 1980; Ketelaar, Reiffe, Weifferink, & Frijns, 2012).

In 2015, a study was conducted to determine the difference in levels of self-reported and

observed empathy between children who are DHH and children with normal hearing. It

was found that cognitive empathy was lower in children who were DHH, regardless of

their level of hearing amplification. However, the results also showed that children who

are DHH in mainstream schools had higher levels of empathy than children who are

DHH attending special schools. The issue with low empathy levels in children who are

DHH is deeper than them just not caring for other individuals. Affective empathy (feeling

what the other person feels) is thought to be neurologically hard-wired and is present in

children despite their social learning experiences. Cognitive empathy (understanding

4
other’s emotions) depends on the extent to which children can participate in a social

environment. Children who are DHH are compromised in their ability to fully access the

social environment (Reiffe, 2015).

Methods

Participants

The participants in this study were from 2 different settings. The first group will

be students ages 3-12 who attend Children’s Synergistic Learning Center (CSLC). Of the

23 students at CSLC, 12 are girls and 11 are boys. At least 50% of students at CSLC have

a learning deficit in 1 or more areas.

The second group of students assessed will be from another inclusive

environment (OIE) in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Thirteen students will be assessed,

ages 11-15. The OIE consists of 8 females and 5 males. Two students in this environment

have Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and are receiving educational support resource

outside of their mainstream classes. Their disabilities were not disclosed.

Instrument

The Empathy Questionnaire (EmQue), developed in the Netherlands by Reiffe,

Ketelaar, and Wiefferink, (2010) examines empathy in infancy through adolescence using

parent, teacher, and self-reports. A study conducted by Carolien Reiffe (2010) focused on

the validation of the EmQue in infancy and early childhood. In this study validity was

based on parent reports of children with a mean age of 30 months. The breakdown of

these questions has been organized into 4 distinguished levels of empathy (Hoffman,

1987). These levels are “global empathy”, ‘attention to others’ feelings’, ‘prosocial

actions’, and ‘empathy for others’ life conditions’.

5
 Global empathy manifests itself within the first year of life. This level is

characterized by infants attending to the emotions of others. For example, the crying of a

baby might trigger a response in other babies (Reiffe, 2010). This is also labeled as

‘Emotion Contagion’ (Hartfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1993).

Attention to others’ feelings presumably starts at the age of one. Hoffman (1987)

described this as an infant feeling distress but knowing that it’s someone else who is in

danger or pain. At this level, infants develop the capacity to attend to others’ emotions

with less personal distress.

Prosocial actions are part of the third level of empathy where children become

more responsive to others’ emotional displays and start to react in a prosocial manner. A

1992 study by Zahn-Waxler and colleagues showed that children develop this capacity to

intervene on behalf of others during their second year of life. This can take a variety of

forms, including helping, sharing, and comforting.

Empathy for another’s life condition, level four of Hoffman’s theory, develops

during late childhood and refers to empathic responses not only confined to the situation,

but also with another’s general level of distress or deprivation. This level can motivate

others to feel empathy for people who live in more unfavorable circumstances and

support them by donating money to charity or volunteering (Reiffe, 2010).

An advantage of the EmQue is that all the questions across each parent, teacher,

and self-report are essentially asking the same thing.

The EmQue was selected as the most appropriate assessment due to its non-

limiting age versatility in that it has been validated to assess children from 3 to 16 years

of age. The questionnaire included 3 questions on demographic data (age, sex, school) in

6
addition to the 20 items of the questionnaire. The EmQue Teacher report (Attachment 1)

has 20 items. Questions were answered based on the likelihood that the statement related

to the child by answering “No”, “Sometimes” or “Often”.

Procedures

Teachers at CSLC completed the EmQue for their students via Google Forms.

Data were also collected from parents for each one of their children who attend CSLC.

That data, however, was not used in the analysis of this project. CSLC wishes to collect

parent reports for more reliable data for their future use and to inform parents on what

they are looking for in terms of empathy.

OIE teachers in the Phoenix metropolitan area were asked to complete the EmQue

for their 15-20 of the children in their classrooms.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed based on demographic data. CSLC’s levels of empathy was

compared to the levels of empathy in OIE children. The levels will also be analyzed

based on location.

All forms submitted electronically were automatically put into a data sheet for

further analysis on empathy levels based on school, age, and gender. Responses were

separated by student location (CSLC or Other) so that appropriate comparisons could be

made.

The EmQue responses were translated quantitatively. All ‘No’ responses were

scored a 0, all ‘Sometimes’ responses were score a 1, and all ‘Often’ responses were

scored with a 2.

7
 Total score averages were found for each respective environment. Average scores

for each level of empathy were also scored and compared.

Hypothesis

Children in inclusive environments will have higher levels of empathy where

empathy is a meaningful part of the curriculum versus children in OIE where empathy is

not a meaningful part of the curriculum.

Results

Each item of the EmQue has a total possible score of 2. Of the 20 items, there are

7 items related to emotion contagion, 7 related to attention to others’ feelings, and 6

related to prosocial actions.

CSLC scored on average a 16.8. Their lowest total score was an 11 and their

highest total score was a 23. Of the levels of empathy that were assessed, they scored an

average 1.5 on emotion contagion, an 8.8 on attention to others’ feelings, and a 6.5 on

prosocial actions.

The OIE we assessed scored an average 14.9. Their lowest total score was a 5 and

their highest total score was a 28. Of the levels of empathy that were assessed, they

scored an average 1.6 on emotion contagion, a 7.4 on attention to others feelings, and a

6.0 on prosocial actions.

As seen on Table 1, CLSC scored higher on other overall score, prosocial actions,

and attention to others feelings. These findings confirm the hypothesis that schools who

implement empathy concepts in their curriculum will produce more empathic children.

8
Discussion

Though the scores of the data collected were not significantly different, , there are

a circumstances that need to be taken into account.

The students at CSLC are between the ages of 3 and 11, while the students in the

OIE were between the ages of 11 and 15. Children who are significantly younger have

higher levels of empathy due to the explicit teaching of empathy in the educational

environment. That tiny gap seems a little bigger to me now.

In relation to the article by Kalisch (1973), Students at CSLC scored highest in

attention to others’ feelings (Table 1). This means students are able to recognize and

understand the emotions of another person in their proximity. Individuals who tend to

lack development in this level typically don’t understand why people are feeling the way

they do. For example, when I fall down and bump my knee, I may cry in pain. An

individual who lacks development in attention to others’ feelings may see me sitting on

the ground, holding my knee, and not understand why I am upset or hurt.

Alternatively, the scores for empathy of students in OIE may be explainable

according to the literature on inclusive learning environments. Thomas & Loxely (2007)

stated that students need inclusion to a welcoming learning community that builds social

connection and community. While all students assessed are in an inclusion environment,

the students in Phoenix Metropolitan area are not in collaborative, project-based

classrooms like CSLC. It could be that students with and without disabilities have a

harder time in inclusion environments because of the lack of social connection and

community.

9
 Students as CSLC, while they may be younger, are much more interactive with

each other academically by sharing ideas, presenting and developing projects, and

participating in interactive class discussions. Students at CSLC also may learn to find

connections with other students, even ones who are different, based on core values of the

school’s curriculum.

Overall, it appears that higher empathy levels depend on environment,

experiences, and the ability to connect to the social community surrounding an

individual.

Some limitations of this study included low teacher availability to fill out forms.

Schools, teachers, and parents will need a lot of time to prepare for a study like this since

special permission was requested for students to fill out any EmQue self-reports. Due to

the lack of permission, students were not able to fill out self-reports. Teachers at CSLC

had no issues making time to fill out forms, however, OIE teachers in public schools

were harder to get ahold of and more likely to be unresponsive to participation.

For next time, I would plan for a whole semester to allow for data collection,

instead of 1 month.

10
 Total Emotion Attention to Prosocial
Table 1 Average Contagion Others’ Actions
Feelings
CSLC 16.8 1.5 8.8 6.5
Other Inclusion Environment 14.9 1.6 7.4 6.0

Graph 1: Comparison of Total and Average Scores

14

12

10
Score

0
Emotion Contagion Attention to Others Feelings Prosocial Actions

Total Possible Score CSLC OIE

11
References

Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of

adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex
differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 34(2), 163-75.

Batson C.D., Fultz J, & Schoenrade P.A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively
distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of
Personality. 55(1), 19-39.

Chakrabarti B, Baron-Cohen S. (2006). Empathizing: Neurocognitive developmental

mechanisms and individual differences. Progressive Brain Research. 156:403-17.

Elliott, R., Bohart, A. C., Watson, J. C., & Greenberg, L. S. (2011). Empathy.
Psychotherapy, 48(1), 43-49. doi:10.1037/a0022187

Overgaauw, S., Rieffe, C., Broekhof, E., Crone, E. A., & Güroğlu, B. (2017). Assessing
Empathy across Childhood and Adolescence: Validation of the Empathy
Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents (EmQue-CA). Frontiers in
Psychology, 8, 870. http://doi.org.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00870

M.L. Hoffman (1987). The contribution of empathy to justice and moral judgment.
In Eisenberg, N., Strayer, J. (1987) Empathy and its Development, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge. 47-80.

Rieffe, C., Ketelaara L, Wiefferink, C. (2010). Assessing empathy in young children:

Construction and validation of an Empathy Questionnaire (EmQue). Personality
and Individual Differences. Volume 49. Issue 5, 362-367.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.046

Rieffe C, De Rooij M. (2012). The longitudinal relationship between emotion awareness

and internalizing symptoms during late childhood. European Child Adolescence
Psychiatry. 21(6):349-56. doi: 10.1007/s00787-012-0267-8.

Thomas, G., & Loxley, A. (2007). Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing
Inclusion. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.

12
ATTACHMENT 1 - EmQue Teacher Report:

13