Memo 7 - Literature Review
Empathic or Pathetic?
An analysis of empathy interventions on student social interactions.
Eleanor deMuth
Objectives:
1. To create an empathy intervention model appropriate for the classroom by pulling ideas, strategies, and best practices from researchers in this field.
2. To determine the best methods for collecting and analyzing data for empathy interventions in the classroom.
3. To understand how previous experience and social behavior can shaped and contributed to the different patterns of empathy.
Euler, F., Steinlin, C., & Stadler, C. (2017). Distinct profiles of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescents: associations with cognitive and affective empathy. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry & Mental Health, 11, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-016-0141-4
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between different types of empathy (cognitive and affective) with different profiles of aggression (reactive and proactive). According to Euler, Steinlin, & Stadler (2017), it was hypothesized that “cognitive and affective empathy are negatively associated with proactive aggression but not with reactive aggression” (p. 3). The researchers surveyed 254 adolescents, ages 12 to 18, using two unique surveys: Basic Empathy Scale and the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire. The results showed that, “cognitive and affective empathy were significantly associated with proactive aggression, but not with reactive aggression” (Euler, Steinlin, & Stadler, 2017, p. 8). This means that adolescents that have lower levels of empathy are more likely to be have higher levels of aggression, especially when the aggression is motivated by reward. Additionally, this means that, “proactive… aggression is negatively associated with feelings of guilt in children” (Euler, Steinlin, & Stadler, 2017, p. 9).
Ingoglia, S., Lo Coco, A., & Albiero, P. (2016). Development of a Brief Form of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (B–IRI). Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(5), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1149858
This study focused on analyzing an abbreviated version of the established Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) self- report measure. The IRI is a “standardized self-report measure of disposition to empathic responsiveness for the general adult …and adolescent population” (Ingoglia, Lo Coco, & Albiero, 2016, p. 461). Ingoglia, Lo Coco, & Albiero (2016), found that the original IRI has known problems that need to be fixed, such as, uncertainty in structure and factor, low reliability, and literacy accessibility. The researchers believed that the brief IRI (B-IRI) will, “have a simple factor structure, improving the separability of the individual scales, while maintaining their internal consistency and core content coverages” (Ingoglia, Lo Coco, & Albiero, 2016, p. 462). To test the B-IRI, data was gather from three independent studies were and assessed for reliability between studies, gender, and age. The results of the study supported the hypothesis and, in fact, the B-IRI was found to be valid and reliable. The researchers concluded that the B-IRI is, “easier to use, more appropriate than the IRI with special populations who have low literacy skills” (Ingoglia, Lo Coco, & Albiero, 2016, p. 469).
Luke, N., & Banerjee, R. (2012). Maltreated Children’s Social Understanding and Empathy: A Preliminary Exploration of Foster Carers’ Perspectives. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 21(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9468-x
Previous studies have suggested that, “interactions with parents in a maltreating context…compromise…development… social skills…and empathy, and that this might impact negatively on their peer relationships” (Luke & Banerjee, 2012, p. 237). The purpose of this study was to determine if empathy and social understandings are, in fact, related to the relationship between negative parenting experiences and peer relationships. Luke & Banerjee (2012) proposed that this effect is, “mediated by children’s social understanding and empathy” (p. 239). Foster carers, already part of a regular meeting, were asked to participate in a discussion and interview process. From these sessions the researchers gathered their qualitative data. The results of the study revealed that, “problematic self-perception and peer relationships were commonplace among the children discussed by these carers” (Luke & Banerjee, 2012, p.243). Furthermore, empathy and social understanding were identified as the reason for such socio-emotional difficulties.
Malti, T., Chaparro, M. P., Zuffianò, A., & Colasante, T. (2016). School-Based Interventions to Promote Empathy-Related Responding in Children and Adolescents: A Developmental Analysis. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 45(6), 718–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1121822
It is often believed that empathy interventions will increase a child’s social-emotional functioning, while impeding that child’s aggression. The objectives of this article were to, “assess the effectiveness of select school-based empathy interventions and the extent to which they align with developmental theory and research” (Euler, Steinlin, & Stadler, 2017, p. 718). The researchers used the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) criteria and the Lifecourse Interventions to Nurture Kids Successfully (LINKS) database to narrow the school-based intervention down to 19 programs. The experimenters coded these programs for: student outcomes, social-emotional competes, conduct problems, academic functioning, and intervention strategies. The results of the analysis suggested that interventions strategies that targeted empathy at various developmental levels were more likely to promote prosaically and impede aggression. However, of the interventions analyzed, “none considered developmental difference within grades” (Euler, Steinlin, & Stadler, 2017, p. 718). In conclusion, the Euler, Steinlin, & Stadler (2017), acknowledges that it is important for teachers to understand the development of empathy, which will then help the teacher gauge the proper intervention.
Maynard, A. S., Monk, J. D., & Booker, K. W. (2011). Building Empathy Through Identification and Expression of Emotions: A Review of Interactive Tools for Children With Social Deficits. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 6(2), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2011.579874
The purpose of this article was to review interactive aids that help children identify and express feelings. The researchers conducted this analysis because they strongly believe that identification and expression of emotions are a crucial requirement for the development of empathy” (Maynard, Monk, & Booker, 2011, p.166). Past literature has suggested that, “interactive tools, such as audio, ad visual mechanisms and games, have been found to be useful in the development of prosocial identification and expression of feelings” (Maynard, Monk, & Booker, 2011, p. 68). After significant analysis, 5 programs and aids have been identified as either helping children identify an emotion or express an emotion. Overall, the researchers believe that learning how to identify and express emotions is daunting, especially when a child is in a deprived environment. Therefore, “these tools may be useful for engaging children and adolescents in conversation about their feelings and may help make the topic less intimidating” (Maynard, Monk, & Booker, 2011, p.173).
McCarthy, S., & LaChenaye, J. (2017). Adopting an Ethic of Empathy: Introducing Counseling Best Practices as Qualitative Best Practice. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 11(3), 188–198.
When deciding to conduct qualitative research the, “various elements of the qualitative process remain ill-defined” (McCarthy & LaChenaye, 2017, p.188). The purpose of this article is to determine standards and strategies to use when conducting qualitative research that will increase validity and trustworthiness. McCarthy & LaChenaye (2017), “propose an integration of Patton’s strategies of qualitative inquires with counseling microskills” (p.189). The results of the study suggest that microskills can be used to improve, “interpretations of patients’ descriptions” (McCarthy & LaChenaye, 2017, p.190). While also improving a working relationship between the participant and the researcher. Lastly, McCarthy & LaChenaye (2017) suggest that, using microskills in qualitative researcher will help researchers break down the three components of verbal messages: cognitive level, emotional level, and existential or meaning level.
Reid, C., Davis, H., Horlin, C., Anderson, M., Baughman, N., & Campbell, C. (2013). The Kids’ Empathic Development Scale (KEDS): A multi-dimensional measure of empathy in primary school-aged children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12002
The researchers of this study believe that, “assessment of empathy in children is constrained by a lack of suitable measurement instruments” (Reid et al., 2013, p. 231). Therefore, the purpose of this article was to explore how well the Kids Empathic Development Scale (KEDS) measures empathy in school-age children. Reid et al., (2013) believed that the KEDS will be a successful measure of empathy because it, “introduces a new multi-dimensional measure that assesses cognitive affective and behavioural components of empathy” (p. 234). Children, ages 7 to 10, were recruited to partake in two pictographic events while also participating in seven other known empathy measures and activities. The researchers cross-analyzed the data between all sources for cognitive, affective, and behavioural empathy. The results suggest that, “affective, cognitive and behavioural empathy are distinguishable and indicate that the KEDS is successful in differentiating these facets” (Reid et al., 2013, p. 250).
Rieffe, C., & Camodeca, M. (2016). Empathy in adolescence: Relations with emotion awareness and social roles. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12133
This study explored how different levels of emotional awareness and social roles in bullying relate to the development of affective and cognitive empathy in adolescences. The researchers believed that, “emotion awareness…willingness to face one’s own emotions and the emotions of others” (Rieffe & Camodeca, 2016, p. 342). Therefore, emotional awareness will be positively related to both affective and cognitive empathy. The researchers surveyed 182 adolescents for 3 years, the surveys used were the: Interpersonal Reactivity Index, Emotional Awareness Questionnaire and the Participant Role Scales. The results of the study strongly suggest that, “the tendency to value emotions…related to the two core aspects of empathy” (Rieffe & Camodeca, 2016, p. 349). Suggesting that if adolescents pay more attention to their emotions and the emotions of others daily, they are more likely to have a greater sense of empathy. Therefore, if adolescents have a, “concern for inner states during an emotion experience… prohibit…adaptive coping strategies… and hamper adaptive empathic behavior” (Rieffe & Camodeca, 2016, p. 349).
Reference:
Euler, F., Steinlin, C., & Stadler, C. (2017). Distinct profiles of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescents: associations with cognitive and affective empathy. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry & Mental Health, 11, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-016-0141-4
Ingoglia, S., Lo Coco, A., & Albiero, P. (2016). Development of a Brief Form of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (B–IRI). Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(5), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1149858
Luke, N., & Banerjee, R. (2012). Maltreated Children’s Social Understanding and Empathy: A Preliminary Exploration of Foster Carers’ Perspectives. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 21(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9468-x
Malti, T., Chaparro, M. P., Zuffianò, A., & Colasante, T. (2016). School-Based Interventions to Promote Empathy-Related Responding in Children and Adolescents: A Developmental Analysis. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 45(6), 718–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1121822
Maynard, A. S., Monk, J. D., & Booker, K. W. (2011). Building Empathy Through Identification and Expression of Emotions: A Review of Interactive Tools for Children With Social Deficits. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 6(2), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2011.579874
McCarthy, S., & LaChenaye, J. (2017). Adopting an Ethic of Empathy: Introducing Counseling Best Practices as Qualitative Best Practice. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 11(3), 188–198.
Reid, C., Davis, H., Horlin, C., Anderson, M., Baughman, N., & Campbell, C. (2013). The Kids’ Empathic Development Scale (KEDS): A multi-dimensional measure of empathy in primary school-aged children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12002
Rieffe, C., & Camodeca, M. (2016). Empathy in adolescence: Relations with emotion awareness and social roles. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12133
An analysis of empathy interventions on student social interactions.
Eleanor deMuth
Objectives:
1. To create an empathy intervention model appropriate for the classroom by pulling ideas, strategies, and best practices from researchers in this field.
2. To determine the best methods for collecting and analyzing data for empathy interventions in the classroom.
3. To understand how previous experience and social behavior can shaped and contributed to the different patterns of empathy.
Euler, F., Steinlin, C., & Stadler, C. (2017). Distinct profiles of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescents: associations with cognitive and affective empathy. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry & Mental Health, 11, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-016-0141-4
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between different types of empathy (cognitive and affective) with different profiles of aggression (reactive and proactive). According to Euler, Steinlin, & Stadler (2017), it was hypothesized that “cognitive and affective empathy are negatively associated with proactive aggression but not with reactive aggression” (p. 3). The researchers surveyed 254 adolescents, ages 12 to 18, using two unique surveys: Basic Empathy Scale and the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire. The results showed that, “cognitive and affective empathy were significantly associated with proactive aggression, but not with reactive aggression” (Euler, Steinlin, & Stadler, 2017, p. 8). This means that adolescents that have lower levels of empathy are more likely to be have higher levels of aggression, especially when the aggression is motivated by reward. Additionally, this means that, “proactive… aggression is negatively associated with feelings of guilt in children” (Euler, Steinlin, & Stadler, 2017, p. 9).
Ingoglia, S., Lo Coco, A., & Albiero, P. (2016). Development of a Brief Form of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (B–IRI). Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(5), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1149858
This study focused on analyzing an abbreviated version of the established Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) self- report measure. The IRI is a “standardized self-report measure of disposition to empathic responsiveness for the general adult …and adolescent population” (Ingoglia, Lo Coco, & Albiero, 2016, p. 461). Ingoglia, Lo Coco, & Albiero (2016), found that the original IRI has known problems that need to be fixed, such as, uncertainty in structure and factor, low reliability, and literacy accessibility. The researchers believed that the brief IRI (B-IRI) will, “have a simple factor structure, improving the separability of the individual scales, while maintaining their internal consistency and core content coverages” (Ingoglia, Lo Coco, & Albiero, 2016, p. 462). To test the B-IRI, data was gather from three independent studies were and assessed for reliability between studies, gender, and age. The results of the study supported the hypothesis and, in fact, the B-IRI was found to be valid and reliable. The researchers concluded that the B-IRI is, “easier to use, more appropriate than the IRI with special populations who have low literacy skills” (Ingoglia, Lo Coco, & Albiero, 2016, p. 469).
Luke, N., & Banerjee, R. (2012). Maltreated Children’s Social Understanding and Empathy: A Preliminary Exploration of Foster Carers’ Perspectives. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 21(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9468-x
Previous studies have suggested that, “interactions with parents in a maltreating context…compromise…development… social skills…and empathy, and that this might impact negatively on their peer relationships” (Luke & Banerjee, 2012, p. 237). The purpose of this study was to determine if empathy and social understandings are, in fact, related to the relationship between negative parenting experiences and peer relationships. Luke & Banerjee (2012) proposed that this effect is, “mediated by children’s social understanding and empathy” (p. 239). Foster carers, already part of a regular meeting, were asked to participate in a discussion and interview process. From these sessions the researchers gathered their qualitative data. The results of the study revealed that, “problematic self-perception and peer relationships were commonplace among the children discussed by these carers” (Luke & Banerjee, 2012, p.243). Furthermore, empathy and social understanding were identified as the reason for such socio-emotional difficulties.
Malti, T., Chaparro, M. P., Zuffianò, A., & Colasante, T. (2016). School-Based Interventions to Promote Empathy-Related Responding in Children and Adolescents: A Developmental Analysis. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 45(6), 718–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1121822
It is often believed that empathy interventions will increase a child’s social-emotional functioning, while impeding that child’s aggression. The objectives of this article were to, “assess the effectiveness of select school-based empathy interventions and the extent to which they align with developmental theory and research” (Euler, Steinlin, & Stadler, 2017, p. 718). The researchers used the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) criteria and the Lifecourse Interventions to Nurture Kids Successfully (LINKS) database to narrow the school-based intervention down to 19 programs. The experimenters coded these programs for: student outcomes, social-emotional competes, conduct problems, academic functioning, and intervention strategies. The results of the analysis suggested that interventions strategies that targeted empathy at various developmental levels were more likely to promote prosaically and impede aggression. However, of the interventions analyzed, “none considered developmental difference within grades” (Euler, Steinlin, & Stadler, 2017, p. 718). In conclusion, the Euler, Steinlin, & Stadler (2017), acknowledges that it is important for teachers to understand the development of empathy, which will then help the teacher gauge the proper intervention.
Maynard, A. S., Monk, J. D., & Booker, K. W. (2011). Building Empathy Through Identification and Expression of Emotions: A Review of Interactive Tools for Children With Social Deficits. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 6(2), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2011.579874
The purpose of this article was to review interactive aids that help children identify and express feelings. The researchers conducted this analysis because they strongly believe that identification and expression of emotions are a crucial requirement for the development of empathy” (Maynard, Monk, & Booker, 2011, p.166). Past literature has suggested that, “interactive tools, such as audio, ad visual mechanisms and games, have been found to be useful in the development of prosocial identification and expression of feelings” (Maynard, Monk, & Booker, 2011, p. 68). After significant analysis, 5 programs and aids have been identified as either helping children identify an emotion or express an emotion. Overall, the researchers believe that learning how to identify and express emotions is daunting, especially when a child is in a deprived environment. Therefore, “these tools may be useful for engaging children and adolescents in conversation about their feelings and may help make the topic less intimidating” (Maynard, Monk, & Booker, 2011, p.173).
McCarthy, S., & LaChenaye, J. (2017). Adopting an Ethic of Empathy: Introducing Counseling Best Practices as Qualitative Best Practice. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 11(3), 188–198.
When deciding to conduct qualitative research the, “various elements of the qualitative process remain ill-defined” (McCarthy & LaChenaye, 2017, p.188). The purpose of this article is to determine standards and strategies to use when conducting qualitative research that will increase validity and trustworthiness. McCarthy & LaChenaye (2017), “propose an integration of Patton’s strategies of qualitative inquires with counseling microskills” (p.189). The results of the study suggest that microskills can be used to improve, “interpretations of patients’ descriptions” (McCarthy & LaChenaye, 2017, p.190). While also improving a working relationship between the participant and the researcher. Lastly, McCarthy & LaChenaye (2017) suggest that, using microskills in qualitative researcher will help researchers break down the three components of verbal messages: cognitive level, emotional level, and existential or meaning level.
Reid, C., Davis, H., Horlin, C., Anderson, M., Baughman, N., & Campbell, C. (2013). The Kids’ Empathic Development Scale (KEDS): A multi-dimensional measure of empathy in primary school-aged children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12002
The researchers of this study believe that, “assessment of empathy in children is constrained by a lack of suitable measurement instruments” (Reid et al., 2013, p. 231). Therefore, the purpose of this article was to explore how well the Kids Empathic Development Scale (KEDS) measures empathy in school-age children. Reid et al., (2013) believed that the KEDS will be a successful measure of empathy because it, “introduces a new multi-dimensional measure that assesses cognitive affective and behavioural components of empathy” (p. 234). Children, ages 7 to 10, were recruited to partake in two pictographic events while also participating in seven other known empathy measures and activities. The researchers cross-analyzed the data between all sources for cognitive, affective, and behavioural empathy. The results suggest that, “affective, cognitive and behavioural empathy are distinguishable and indicate that the KEDS is successful in differentiating these facets” (Reid et al., 2013, p. 250).
Rieffe, C., & Camodeca, M. (2016). Empathy in adolescence: Relations with emotion awareness and social roles. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12133
This study explored how different levels of emotional awareness and social roles in bullying relate to the development of affective and cognitive empathy in adolescences. The researchers believed that, “emotion awareness…willingness to face one’s own emotions and the emotions of others” (Rieffe & Camodeca, 2016, p. 342). Therefore, emotional awareness will be positively related to both affective and cognitive empathy. The researchers surveyed 182 adolescents for 3 years, the surveys used were the: Interpersonal Reactivity Index, Emotional Awareness Questionnaire and the Participant Role Scales. The results of the study strongly suggest that, “the tendency to value emotions…related to the two core aspects of empathy” (Rieffe & Camodeca, 2016, p. 349). Suggesting that if adolescents pay more attention to their emotions and the emotions of others daily, they are more likely to have a greater sense of empathy. Therefore, if adolescents have a, “concern for inner states during an emotion experience… prohibit…adaptive coping strategies… and hamper adaptive empathic behavior” (Rieffe & Camodeca, 2016, p. 349).
Reference:
Euler, F., Steinlin, C., & Stadler, C. (2017). Distinct profiles of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescents: associations with cognitive and affective empathy. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry & Mental Health, 11, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-016-0141-4
Ingoglia, S., Lo Coco, A., & Albiero, P. (2016). Development of a Brief Form of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (B–IRI). Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(5), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1149858
Luke, N., & Banerjee, R. (2012). Maltreated Children’s Social Understanding and Empathy: A Preliminary Exploration of Foster Carers’ Perspectives. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 21(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9468-x
Malti, T., Chaparro, M. P., Zuffianò, A., & Colasante, T. (2016). School-Based Interventions to Promote Empathy-Related Responding in Children and Adolescents: A Developmental Analysis. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 45(6), 718–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1121822
Maynard, A. S., Monk, J. D., & Booker, K. W. (2011). Building Empathy Through Identification and Expression of Emotions: A Review of Interactive Tools for Children With Social Deficits. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 6(2), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2011.579874
McCarthy, S., & LaChenaye, J. (2017). Adopting an Ethic of Empathy: Introducing Counseling Best Practices as Qualitative Best Practice. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 11(3), 188–198.
Reid, C., Davis, H., Horlin, C., Anderson, M., Baughman, N., & Campbell, C. (2013). The Kids’ Empathic Development Scale (KEDS): A multi-dimensional measure of empathy in primary school-aged children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12002
Rieffe, C., & Camodeca, M. (2016). Empathy in adolescence: Relations with emotion awareness and social roles. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12133
Comments
Post a Comment