Examining empathic accuracy in a standardized task and in a naturalistic interaction: Associations, differences, and links with empathy

Empathic accuracy (EA) – the ability to infer others' emotions accurately – is typically conceptualized as a perceiver-level skill. This perspective implies that performance on different EA tasks should be correlated. Further, EA should be associated with trait empathy, given the theoretical similarity between the constructs, and that EA tasks are often used as behavioural measures of cognitive empathy. We examined the conceptualization of EA as a perceiver-level skill, and as a measure of perceivers' cognitive empathy. We recruited friend dyads ( N = 137 dyads, M age = 19.61 years, SD age = 1.34 years) and tested associations and differences between EA measured with a personal task (rating the affect of a friend following a supportive interaction), and a standardized task (rating the affect of unknown targets discussing emotional events). Additionally, we examined associations between EA and cognitive and affective empathy. Analyses revealed low correspondence in EA between tasks and videos. EA was higher on each of the standard-task videos compared to in the personal task. Finally, greater self-report affective empathy, but not cognitive empathy, was linked to greater EA in both tasks. These findings challenge the notion that EA is a skill of the perceiver. Implications for conceptualizing and measuring empathic accuracy are discussed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Personality and Individual Differences
Published
2024-12-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.113016
Primary Topic
Emotional Intelligence and Performance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Examining empathic accuracy in a standardized task and in a naturalistic interaction: Associations, differences, and links with empathy

Erin M. Macdonald, Jennifer A. Bartz, Katya Santucci, Jonas P. Nitschke et al.
Personality and Individual Differences
Emotional Intelligence and Performance
article

Examining empathic accuracy in a standardized task and in a naturalistic interaction: Associations, differences, and links with empathy

Erin M. Macdonald, Jennifer A. Bartz, Katya Santucci, Jonas P. Nitschke, Lauren J. Human, Thomas H. Khullar, Melanie A. Dirks, Alexandrija Zikic
article en

Abstract

Empathic accuracy (EA) – the ability to infer others' emotions accurately – is typically conceptualized as a perceiver-level skill. This perspective implies that performance on different EA tasks should be correlated. Further, EA should be associated with trait empathy, given the theoretical similarity between the constructs, and that EA tasks are often used as behavioural measures of cognitive empathy. We examined the conceptualization of EA as a perceiver-level skill, and as a measure of perceivers' cognitive empathy. We recruited friend dyads ( N = 137 dyads, M age = 19.61 years, SD age = 1.34 years) and tested associations and differences between EA measured with a personal task (rating the affect of a friend following a supportive interaction), and a standardized task (rating the affect of unknown targets discussing emotional events). Additionally, we examined associations between EA and cognitive and affective empathy. Analyses revealed low correspondence in EA between tasks and videos. EA was higher on each of the standard-task videos compared to in the personal task. Finally, greater self-report affective empathy, but not cognitive empathy, was linked to greater EA in both tasks. These findings challenge the notion that EA is a skill of the perceiver. Implications for conceptualizing and measuring empathic accuracy are discussed.

Personality and Individual DifferencesVol. 236
University of Vienna (AT), University of British Columbia (CA), McGill University (CA)
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Emotional Intelligence and Performance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.