M.

©de
European Journal of PsychologicalA Wied et2007;
ssessment
2007 al.: Index
Hogrefe &Vol. of Publishers
Huber Empath y
23(2):99–104

Bryant’s Empathy Index

A Closer Examination of its Internal Structure
Minet de Wied1, Cora Maas2, Stephanie van Goozen3, Marjolijn Vermande1,
Rutger Engels4, Wim Meeus1, Walter Matthys5, and Paul Goudena1
1
Department of Child and Adolescent Studies, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, 2Department of
Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, 3School of Psychology, Cardiff
University, UK, 4Behavioral Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands,
5
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience,
University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands

Abstract. The present study examined the internal structure of Bryant’s (1982) Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents, a 22-item
questionnaire measure of dispositional affective empathy. Third graders (n = 817), fourth to sixth graders (n = 82), and eighth graders (n
= 1,079) were studied. Factor analyses revealed that the empathy index is multidimensional, encompassing two subscales. The same
two-factor solution emerged in all samples. The first factor, labeled empathic sadness, showed good reliability in the two larger samples.
Sex differences were established in each sample, with girls reporting more empathic sadness than boys. The second factor, reflecting
attitudes rather than feelings, showed weak reliability in all samples, and poor differentiation between the sexes in the two younger age
samples. The findings seriously challenge the validity of the 22-item empathy index. Improvement of the scale as a measure of affective
empathy is indicated.

Keywords: empathy index, children, adolescents, internal structure, sex differences

Introduction fective empathy in children 6 years and older. The IECA,

In research on empathy, a distinction is typically made be-
tween affective and cognitive empathy (see e.g., Davis,
1996; Duan & Hill, 1996; Miller & Eisenberg, 1988; Hoff-
man, 2000). Affective empathy concerns the vicarious ex-
perience of emotions consistent with those of others, that
is, feeling with others. The cognitive component involves
understanding another’s feelings, whether by means of
simple associations or more complex perspective-taking
processes. Different empathy indexes have been developed
to assess aspects of either affective or cognitive empathy,
or both (see e.g., Eisenberg & Fabes, 1990; Miller & Ei-
senberg, 1988). Questionnaire measures of empathy (self-
and other-reports) are generally used to assess dispositional
(trait) empathy. Frequently used adult measures of empath-
ic tendencies are the Hogan Empathy Scale (HES; Hogan,
1969), designed to assess cognitive empathy; the Question-
naire Measure of Emotional Empathy (QMEE; Mehrabian
& Epstein, 1972), designed to assess affective empathy;
and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983),
which measures aspects of both affective and cognitive em-
pathy.
The Empathy Index for Children and Adolescents
(IECA) is a 22-item self-report questionnaire developed
and validated by Bryant (1982) to assess dispositional af-
derived from Mehrabian and Epsteins’s (1972) adult mea-
sure of emotional empathy, has been designed to assess
emotional responsiveness, rather than accuracy of cogni-
tive insight. The scale contains items that tap a range of
affective reactions, including empathy (“Seeing a
(boy/girl) who is crying makes me feel like crying”), sym-
pathy (“It makes me sad to see a (boy/girl) who can’t find
anyone to play with”), and personal distress (“I get upset
when I see a (boy/girl) being hurt”). Both sympathy and
feelings of personal distress may stem from empathy, but
differ in that sympathy is an other-oriented emotion (feel-
ing for another person) and that personal distress is a self-
focused aversive reaction (Eisenberg, 2000). Nonetheless,
indexes of empathy quite often involve the assessment of
empathy-related responses (including sympathy and per-
sonal distress), rather than pure empathy. To date, the IECA
is the only self-report questionnaire to assess empathic ten-
dencies in young children, and has been used in numerous
studies with children and adolescents (e.g., Cohen & Stray-
er, 1996; Eisenberg et al., 1988; Hastings, Zahn-Waxler,
Robinson, Usher, & Bridges, 2000; Strayer & Roberts,
1997a).
Bryant (1982) examined the reliability and validity of
the index, using first graders, fourth graders, and seventh
graders. Two different response formats were employed: a
child two-point (yes/no) response format in the first- and

© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2007; Vol. 23(2):99–104
DOI 10.1027/1015-5759.23.2.99
100 M. de Wied et al.: Index of Empathy
fourth-grade samples, and an adult nine-point response for-
mat in the seventh-grade sample. Although the IECA dem-
onstrated acceptable test-retest reliability and preliminary
construct validity, the item-total correlations and the reli-
ability formulas that were used indicated weak internal
consistency, especially in the two younger age samples.
These findings raise questions about the factor structure
underlying the IECA. Recently, Del Barrio, Aluja, and Gar-
cia (2004) examined the factor structure of the IECA in a
Spanish sample of adolescent boys and girls, using a 5-
point Likert-type scale. Exploratory and Confirmatory Fac-
tor Analyses revealed a three-factor structure, with factors
related to feelings of sadness, tearful reactions, and under-
standing feelings.
The purpose of the present study was to examine the
internal structure of the IECA, and sex differences, in
Dutch samples of children and adolescents. Samples with
a broader age range were used, namely, third graders (8-
and 9-year-olds), fourth to sixth graders (10- to 12-year-
olds), and eighth graders (13- and 14-year-olds). The orig-
inal child two-point (yes/no) response format was used in
all three samples. As girls are frequently found to be more
empathic than boys (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983; Hoffman,
1977; Strayer & Roberts, 1997b), sex differences were pre-
dicted, with higher empathy scores for girls than for boys.
Methods
Subjects and Procedures
The data were collected within the context of three different
studies with third graders (Sample 1), fourth to sixth grad-
ers (Sample 2), and eighth graders (Sample 3). Somewhat
different administrations of the empathy index (interview
vs. self-report) were used across samples. The children in
Samples 1 and 2 were interviewed individually, since
young children better understand questions that are read
aloud to them. As early adolescents have a sufficient ca-
pacity to understand the questions by reading them them-
selves, the children in Sample 3 were seen in groups. All
studies adhered to required confidentiality procedures. Be-
cause of developmental change in empathy (Hoffman,
2000; Roberts & Strayer, 1996; Strayer, 1993), inclusion
criteria were employed to prevent age overlap between the
samples. Hence, the data of 8- to 9-year-olds from Sample
1, 10- to 12-year-olds from Sample 2, and 13- to 14-year-
olds from Sample 3, were a priori selected to be included
in the statistical analyses.
– Sample 1: The third-grade data were collected as part of
a larger longitudinal study on social development in pri-
mary school children, including 1,001 Dutch children.
Fifty schools participated in the study, all situated in the
province of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Students individ-
ually interviewed the children at their school in a private
classroom. The data from 129 children were removed
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2007; Vol. 23(2):99–104
from the sample because teachers failed to record infor-
mation about age and sex of these children. The data
from respondents who did not complete all items from
the empathy index (n = 10) were also omitted. Conform-
ing to the inclusion criteria, the data from 45 respon-
dents, aged younger than 8 (n = 4), or older than 10 (n
= 41) were omitted from the sample. In total, the data
from 817 children (414 boys; 403 girls) were included
in the statistical analyses of the data. The mean age was
8.88 (SD = .33).
– Sample 2: Students collected data from 90 children at
two primary schools in the vicinity of Utrecht. The sam-
ple included 15 fourth graders, 41 fifth graders, and 34
sixth graders. Consistent with the inclusion criteria, the
data from eight respondents, aged younger than 10 (n =
7), or older than 12 (n = 1) were omitted from further
analyses. In total, the data from 82 children (41 boys; 41
girls) were included in the statistical analyses. The mean
age was 10.89 (SD = .80).
– Sample 3: The eighth-grade data were collected as part
of a larger study on parenting and adolescent problem
behavior. Data of analyses were derived from a study of
1,113 Dutch adolescents who completed the IECA in
classes consisting of 17–31 pupils. In compliance with
the inclusion criteria, the data from 34 respondents aged
younger than 13 (n = 10), or older than 14 (n = 24) were
omitted. In total, the data from 1,079 respondents (500
males; 579 females) were included in the statistical anal-
yses. The mean age of the respondents was 13.40 (SD =
.49).
The Dutch Version of Bryant’s Empathy
Index
The 22 items of Bryant’s empathy index (shown in Table
1), were translated into Dutch by two bilingual researchers
who were both familiar with the construct being assessed.
For one of them the first language was Dutch, for the other
the first language was English. Forward and backward
translation procedures were used. The same sequence of
items was maintained in the Dutch translation of the Index.
Because of the double negation in Item 22, however, the
item was reworded in the affirmative sense. The opening
words of the sentence “I don’t feel upset . . .” were replaced
by the words “I do feel upset . . ..” Item 22 was maintained
in its original wording in Samples 1 and 3, but replaced by
the affirmative statement in Sample 2.
The two-point (yes/no) response format was used in all
samples. The signs in parentheses (see Table 1) refer to the
coding of empathic answers. A “(+)” indicates that an an-
swer in the affirmative contributes to an empathic tenden-
cy. A “(–)” indicates that an answer in the negative contrib-
utes to an empathic tendency. Empathic answers were as-
signed the value 1, and nonempathic answers the value 0.
© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 M. de Wied et al.: Index of Empathy
Table 1. Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents
Statement Yes/No
1 It makes me sad to see a girl who can’t find anyone
to play with
2 People who kiss and hug in public are silly
3 Boys who cry because they are happy are silly
4 I really like to watch people open presents, even
when I don’t get a present myself
5 Seeing a boy who is crying makes me feel like crying
6 I get upset when I see a girl being hurt
7 Even when I don’t know why someone is laughing, I
laugh too
8 Sometimes I cry when I watch TV
9 Girls who cry because they are happy are silly
10 It’s hard for me to see why someone else gets upset
11 I get upset when I see an animal being hurt
12 It makes me sad to see a boy who can’t find anyone
to play with
13 Some songs make me so sad I feel like crying
14 I get upset when I see a boy being hurt
15 Grown-ups sometimes cry, even when they have
nothing to be sad about
16 It’s silly to treat dogs and cats as though they have
feelings like people
17 I get mad when I see a classmate pretending to need
help from the teacher all the time
18 Kids who have no friends probably don’t want any
19 Seeing a girl who is crying makes me feel like crying
20 I think it is funny that some people cry during a sad
movie or while reading a sad book
21 I am able to eat all my cookies even when I see some-
one looking at me wanting one
22 I don’t feel upset when I see a classmate being pun-
ished by a teacher for not obeying school rules
Results
Structure of the Empathy Index
Similar to the results obtained by Bryant (1982), the Cron-
bach’s α coefficients that were calculated in the separate
samples indicated weak to moderate internal consistency
for third graders (.52), fourth to sixth graders (.62), and
eighth graders (.66). To check the dimensionality of the
IECA, we used the Mplus program (Muthén & Muthén,
1988). With this program a factor analysis can be per-
formed on dichotomous data. Exploratory Factor Analyses
were used to determine the number of continuous latent
variables that are needed to explain the correlations among
the set of observed variables. The analyses of the first and
1 Table 2 shows that Item 8 loaded on F1, except for girls in Sample 1; Item 10 loaded on F2, except for girls in Sample 1; and Item 11 loaded
on F1, except for boys in Sample 1. Factor analyses were also conducted with the inclusion of these items. However, the analyses produced
different factor solutions across the three samples.
© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
101
third samples were performed for boys and girls separately.
The sex differentiation could not be made in the second
sample, because of the low number of respondents.
(+)
There are several ways to assess the number of factors
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Selecting the number of fac-
(–)
tors on the basis of the eigenvalues greater than 1 did not
(–) give us a parsimonious solution: this yielded seven or more
(+) factors. A second criterion is the scree test of eigenvalues
plotted against factors. For both girls and boys two under-
(+) lying dimensions were found. The results of the first and
(+) third sample are presented in Table 2. To interpret the fac-
(+) tors an orthogonal rotation was used. As a rule of thumb,
only variables with a loading of .32 and above were inter-
(+) preted (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Minor differences be-
(–) tween boys and girls and between samples were observed
(–) (see Table 2). In order to develop common-item scales for
(+) both boys and girls across different age groups, we used
the criterion of consistency for retaining items on the fac-
(+)
tors. Thus, only items with a minimal weight of .32 for boys
(+)
and girls alike in both age samples were selected. The over-
all conclusion for boys and girls of all ages was that the
(+)
first factor consists of the following seven items: 1, 5, 6,
(–) 12, 13, 14, and 19. The second factor comprises the follow-
ing five items: 2, 3, 9, 16, and 20. The other items did not
(–)
systematically load on either factor1.
A second set of exploratory factor analyses was performed
(–)
on the above-mentioned items. Sample 2 was added, and
Cronbach’s α was also calculated. The results of these anal-
(–)
yses are reported in Table 3. Because Sample 2 consisted of
(+) only 82 respondents, the results should be taken with some
(–) caution. In all samples the same two factors emerged, al-
though Item 13 had a loading on both factors in Sample 2.
(–) The first factor, which accounted for 27% to 33% of the vari-
ance (see Table 3), showed moderate to high loadings of
(–) Items 1, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, and 19 in all samples. We labeled
this factor Empathic Sadness, because all items bear directly
on one’s feelings about another person’s sadness. The second
factor, which accounted for 16% to 20% of the variance (see
Table 3), showed moderate to high loadings of Items 2, 3, 9,
16, and 20. We labeled this factor Attitude, because all items
seem to reflect (negative) attitudes toward emotional behav-
ior. The first factor, labeled Empathic Sadness, showed good
reliability in Samples 1 (.71), and 3 (.76), and almost accept-
able reliability in Sample 2 (.68). The second factor, labeled
Attitude, showed weak reliability across all samples, specif-
ically, in Sample 1 (.59), 2 (.55), and 3 (.54).
The present data reveal that the empathy index is multi-
dimensional, rather than one-dimensional, consisting of
two subscales: a 7-item Empathic Sadness scale, including
items like “It makes me sad to see a girl/boy who can’t find
anyone to play with,” and “I get upset when I see a girl/boy
being hurt,” and a 5-item Attitude scale, including items
like “People who kiss and hug in public are silly,” and “It’s
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2007; Vol. 23(2):99–104
102 M. de Wied et al.: Index of Empathy

Table 2. Factor loadings after varimax rotation of the 22 dispositional empathy items.
Sample 1 Sample 3
Boys (n = 414) Girls (n = 403) Boys (n = 500) Girls (n = 579)
F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2
IEKA1 .823 –.193 .745 .014 .743 –.020 .745 .112
IEKA2 –.010 .623 .020 .486 –.140 .506 –.029 .431
IEKA3 .217 .781 .037 .641 .062 .696 .160 .572
IEKA4 .168 .072 .176 .187 .352 .323 .284 .158
IEKA5 .571 .076 .479 –.053 .417 –.163 .586 –.028
IEKA6 .676 –.026 .751 –.083 .809 .203 .748 .163
IEKA7 .255 –.191 .038 –.088 .345 –.142 .285 –.149
IEKA8 .388 .107 .292 .084 .384 –.080 .480 .076
IEKA9 .192 .765 .141 .513 –.008 .745 .168 .614
IEKA10 –.106 .427 –.144 .296 .000 .548 –.118 .513
IEKA11 .309 .034 .573 .069 .474 .231 .510 .161
IEKA12 .753 –.313 .804 .014 .790 .045 .805 .116
IEKA13 .391 .040 .367 .002 .514 –.222 .410 .059
IEKA14 .722 –.097 .769 .148 .870 .227 .808 .275
IEKA15 –.375 –.024 –.133 –.055 –.229 –.057 –.280 –.059
IEKA16 .020 .415 –.001 .478 –.025 .551 –.015 .562
IEKA17 –.204 .044 –.246 .117 –.135 .307 –.190 .088
IEKA18 –.076 .212 –.002 .297 .001 .425 .066 .604
IEKA19 .816 .021 .690 –.136 .494 –.277 .623 –.212
IEKA20 .031 .441 .177 .625 .062 .454 .168 .648
IEKA21 .243 .206 .137 .592 .150 .207 .014 .279
IEKA22 .058 .007 .032 –.238 –.206 .216 –.199 .014
R2* 18% 11% 17% 10% 18% 13% 19% 12%
Note: Items with loadings in bold were selected for a second set of factor analyses. *Explained variance among the 22 items.

Table 3. Factor loadings after varimax rotation of the selected dispositional empathy items.
Sample 1 (n = 817) Sample 2 (n = 82) Sample 3 (n = 1079)
F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2
IEKA1 .830 –.024 .982 –.058 .833 –.047
IEKA2 –.043 .463 .057 .479 –.102 .470
IEKA3 .015 .855 .228 .635 .178 .793
IEKA5 .495 .049 .409 .156 .632 .112
IEKA6 .687 –.020 .722 .229 .776 .108
IEKA9 .149 .831 –.050 .887 .132 .884
IEKA12 .772 –.051 .889 .041 .851 .001
IEKA13 .387 .087 .325 .482 .528 .098
IEKA14 .697 .050 .615 .339 .840 .155
IEKA16 –.024 .337 .064 .493 –.027 .381
IEKA19 .798 –.027 .445 .039 .609 –.035
IEKA20 .056 .434 .102 .538 .267 .488
2*
R 28% 16% 27% 20% 33% 17%
α** .707 .585 .683 .547 .763 .541
Note: High loadings are given in bold. *Explained variance among the 12 items, **F1: of the items 1, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 19; F2: of the items 2,
3, 9, 16, 20.

European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2007; Vol. 23(2):99–104 © 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
 M. de Wied et al.: Index of Empathy
Table 4. Means (SD) of the empathy scores
Sample 1
Boys Girls t (df =
(n = 414) (n = 403) 815)
22-item index 11.43 (2.92) 12.43 (2.92) –4.87**
7-item distress scale 2.34 (1.80) 3.13 (1.79) –6.25**
5-item attitude scale 2.87 (1.52) 2.82 (1.43) .54
**p < .0001, *p < .01
silly to treat dogs and cats as though they have feelings like
people.”
Sex Differences
The index scores were subjected to independent samples
t-tests, separately for each sample. Consistent with predic-
tions, significant sex differences emerged in all samples for
the 22-item index; t1 (815) = –4.87, p < .0001; t2 (80) =
–3.00, p = .004; t3 (1077) = –16.77, p < .0001, and the
7-item sadness scale; t1 (815) = –6.25, p < .0001; t2 (80) =
–2.58, p = .012; t3 (1077) = –15.41, p < .0001, with higher
scores for girls than for boys (see Table 4). For the 5-item
attitude scale, significant sex differences emerged only in
Sample 3; t3 (1077) = –6.02, p < .0001; not in the two
younger age samples; t1 < 1, t2 (80) = –1.32, ns.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to examine the inter-
nal structure of Bryant’s (1982) Index of Empathy for Chil-
dren and Adolescents (IECA). Although the conceptual
framework for the IECA implies a single dimension of be-
havior, the factor analyses conducted in the present study
suggest that the empathy index is multidimensional, rather
than one-dimensional. The same two-factor solution
emerged in all samples, indicating good replicability. The
first factor, which we labeled Empathic Sadness, showed
good reliability in the two larger samples (Samples 1 and
3) and almost acceptable reliability in the smaller sample
(Sample 2). Sex differences were established in each sam-
ple, with girls reporting more empathic sadness than boys.
The second factor, labeled Attitude, showed weak reliabil-
ity in all samples, and poor differentiation between the sex-
es in the two younger age samples (Samples 1 and 2).
Consistent with Del Barrio et al.’s study, the current
findings suggest that the IECA is not as homogeneous as
intended and represented by Bryant. However, different
from Del Barrio et al.’s study (2004), revealing a three-fac-
tor solution, the present study suggests that a two-factor
solution best fits the data. This inconsistency could result,
in part, from methodological variations, including differ-
ences in age (young vs. older age samples), response for-
mats (binary vs. interval scales), and, consequently, differ-
© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
103
Sample 2 Sample 3
Boys Girls t (df = Boys Girls t (df =
(n = 41) (n = 41) 80) (n = 500) (n = 579) 1077)
12.37 (3.22) 14.17 (2.13) –3.00* 12.11 (2.98) 15.08 (2.83) –16.77**
2.54 (1.75) 3.41 (1.30) –2.58* 1.94 (1.68) 3.62 (1.87) –15.41**
3.85 (1.28) 4.20 (1.05) –1.32 3.87 (1.22) 4.28 (0.98) – 6.02**
ent statistical procedures. Nevertheless, the factors that
emerged in Del Barrio et al’s and our study have some com-
mon characteristics. The items with loadings on Empathic
Sadness, for example, loaded in Del Barrio et al.’s study on
the two factors related to emotional experiences and reac-
tions, labeled Feelings of Sadness and Tearful Reactions.
Likewise, the items with loadings on our Attitude scale
loaded in Del Barrio et al’s study on the one factor related
to emotion knowledge, labeled Understanding Feelings.
Thus, both studies suggest that items aimed at ascertaining
feelings load on different factors than those aimed at ascer-
taining emotional knowledge or attitudes.
It is important to note, however, that the items of the Atti-
tude scale are all reverse-scored items, whereas items of the
Empathic Sadness scale are all worded so that agreement
indicates high empathy. Since children may respond differ-
ently to positive and reversed items, it is possible that the
present factor structure is partly a function of the format in
which the items were presented instead of content. It is also
important to note that both subscales are very narrow in scope
and do not form a representative sample of the entire domain
of affective empathy. The items of the Attitude scale address
only silly or funny behavior, the items of the Empathic Sad-
ness scale address only one single emotion. Nevertheless, the
Empathic Sadness scale seems particularly relevant to affec-
tive empathy in that it seems to measure children’s respon-
siveness to another person’s sadness.
Altogether, the present findings seriously challenge the
validity of the 22-item index as a measure of affective em-
pathy. Further research should be directed toward improv-
ing the validity of the index. We propose to continue with
the 7-item Empathic Sadness scale, which is already more
homogeneous than the 22-item index. The Empathic Sad-
ness scale is rather specific and should not be viewed (nor
used) as a measure of affective empathy. The scale needs
to be enlarged with items covering a broader range of emo-
tions to create a more comprehensive and valid measure of
affective empathy. Yet, the Empathic Sadness scale seems
to measure an essential part of affective empathy, that is,
responsiveness to another person’s sadness. Further re-
search might demonstrate that the scale is useful as a brief
measure of children’s responsiveness to another’s sadness.
The present findings already show that this particular scale
includes items common to girls and boys of all ages and
could, therefore, be used to examine sex differences and
age trends in empathic sadness across childhood, adoles-
cence, and young adulthood.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2007; Vol. 23(2):99–104
104 M. de Wied et al.: Index of Empathy
References
Bryant, B.K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and ado-
lescents. Child Development, 53, 413–425.
Cohen, D., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy in conduct-disordered and
comparison youth. Developmental Psychology, 32, 988–998.
Davis, M.H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empa-
thy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.
Davis, M.H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach
(1994, reprinted 1996). Social Psychology Series. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Del Barrio, V., Aluja, A., & Garcia, L.F. (2004). Bryant’s empathy
index for children and adolescents: Psychometric properties in
the Spanish language. Psychological Reports, 95, 257–262.
Duan, C., & Hill, C.E. (1996). The current state of empathy re-
search. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 261–274.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral develop-
ment. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–697.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R.A. (1990). Empathy: Conceptualiza-
tion, measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motiva-
tion and Emotion, 14, 131–149.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R.A., Bustamante, D., Mathy, R.M., Miller,
P.A., & Lindholm E. (1988). Differentiation of vicariously in-
duced emotional reactions in children. Developmental Psy-
chology, 24, 237–246.
Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy
and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100–131.
Hastings, P.D., Zahn-Waxler, C., Robinson, J., Usher, B., &
Bridges, D. (2000). The development of concern for others in
children with behavior problems. Developmental Psychology,
36, 531–546.
Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307–316.
Hoffman, M.L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related
behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 712–722.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2007; Vol. 23(2):99–104
Hoffman, M.L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Impli-
cations for caring and justice. New York: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N.A. (1972). A measure of emotional
empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525–543.
Miller, P.A., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to
aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 103, 324–344.
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (1988). Mplus user’s guide. Los
Angeles: Muthen & Muthen.
Roberts W., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy, emotional expressive-
ness, and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67, 449–470.
Strayer, J. (1993). Children’s concordant emotions and cognitions
in response to observed emotions. Child Development, 64,
188–201.
Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (1997a). Children’s personal distance
and their empathy: Indices of interpersonal closeness. Interna-
tional Behavioral Development, 20, 385–303.
Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (1997b). Facial and verbal measures of
children’s emotions and empathy. International Journal of Be-
havioral Development, 20, 627–649.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate sta-
tistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Minet de Wied
Department of Child and Adolescent Studies
Utrecht University
Heidelberglaan 1
de Uithof, P.O. Box 80140
NL-3508 TC Utrecht
The Netherlands
Tel. +31 30 253-7693
Fax +31 30 253-7731
E-mail m.dewied@fss.uu.nl
© 2007 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers