The Development and Validation of the Empathy Components Questionnaire (ECQ)

Abstract

Key research suggests that empathy is a multidimensional construct comprising of both cognitive and affective components. More recent theories and research suggest even further factors within these components of empathy, including the ability to empathize with others versus the drive towards empathizing with others. While numerous self-report measures have been developed to examine empathy, none of them currently index all of these wider components together. The aim of the present research was to develop and validate the Empathy Components Questionnaire (ECQ) to measure cognitive and affective components, as well as ability and drive components within each. Study one utilized items measuring cognitive and affective empathy taken from various established questionnaires to create an initial version of the ECQ. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to examine the underlying components of empathy within the ECQ in a sample of 101 typical adults. Results revealed a five-component model consisting of cognitive ability, cognitive drive, affective ability, affective drive, and a fifth factor assessing affective reactivity. This five-component structure was then validated and confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in an independent sample of 211 typical adults. Results also showed that females scored higher than males overall on the ECQ, and on specific components, which is consistent with previous findings of a female advantage on self-reported empathy. Findings also showed certain components predicted scores on an independent measure of social behavior, which provided good convergent validity of the ECQ. Together, these findings validate the newly developed ECQ as a multidimensional measure of empathy more in-line with current theories of empathy. The ECQ provides a useful new tool for quick and easy measurement of empathy and its components for research with both healthy and clinical populations.

Improving empathy with motivational strategies in batterer intervention programmes: Results of a randomized controlled trial

“…Regarding the fantasy subscale, the absence of differences could be explained by the fact that this subscale actually measures imagination and emotional self‐control, rather than cognitive empathy (Baldner & McGinley, ; Lawrence, Shaw, Baker, Baron‐Cohen, & David, ). With regard to emotional empathy, although the SBIP and SBIP + IMP included experiential training (e.g., role‐playing…), didactic training (lecture based), skills training and/or a combination of these methods (usually employed to improve emotional empathy) (Teding van Berkhout & Malouff, ), there could be several reasons for the lack of differences on the emotional empathy scales: (1) the use of a single self‐report to assess emotional empathy instead of other self‐reports focused on this kind of empathy (e.g., Balanced emotional empathy scale, Questionnaire measure of emotional empathy…); (2) the lack of alternative ways to assess emotional empathy, such as the pictorial empathy test, The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (which may be appropriate in the context of our study); and/or (3) the questionable four‐factor solution of the IRI questionnaire (Batchelder, Brosnan, & Ashwin, ).…”

“…. ); (2) the lack of alternative ways to assess emotional empathy, such as the pictorial empathy test, The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (which may be appropriate in the context of our study); and/or (3) the questionable four-factor solution of the IRI questionnaire (Batchelder, Brosnan, & Ashwin, 2017).…”

Empathy and face processing in adults with and without autism spectrum disorder

“…Future studies should take into account that empathy is a multidimensional construct, having both cognitive and affective components. Cognitive empathy refers to the ability to understand how another person is feeling, whereas affective empathy refers to the ability to mirror another's emotional state (motor empathy), or respond appropriately to it (emotional empathy) [see Batchelder, Brosnan, & Ashwin, ; Blair, ]. Based on his review of the literature, Blair concluded that deficits in cognitive and motor empathy are well established in ASD, but that the evidence for impaired emotional empathy is mixed.…”

Inteligencia emocional centrada en uno mismo y en el otro: Escala Rotterdam de Inteligencia Emocional (REIS)

“…Por ello, la relación mostrada de las emociones con la capacidad para la comunicación efectiva -el respeto, las actitudes prosociales, la asertividad, la empatía, etc. (Batchelder, Brosnan, & Ashwin, 2017;Bisquerra, 2009;Cook et al, 2008;Herzberg & Brähler, 2006;Kinnaman & Bellack, 2012;Kotsou, Leys, & Fossion, 2018;Salavera, Usán, & Teruel, 2019)-resultará interesante en la futura utilización del escala REIS en relación con estas variables, con estudios más avanzados, o incluso para seguir reexaminando sus propiedades.…”