The relationship of empathy to scholastic success with implications for student personnel workers

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The relationship of empathy to scholastic success with implications for student personnel workers
Physical Description:
Unknown
Creator:
Chambers, Frank May, 1919-
Publication Date:

Record Information

Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 14288381
System ID:
AA00021264:00001

Full Text
























UNIVERSITY
OF FLORIDA
LIBRARIES


EDUCATION LIBRARY





















THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPATHY

TO SCHOLASTIC SUCCESS

WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR

STUDENT PERSONNEL WORKERS









By
FRANK MAY CHAMBERS










A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
June, 1954










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer is indebted to all the students and

residence hall counselors who gave their time and minds

to the experiment. Also, he is indebted to Dr. Leon N.

Henderson, chairman of the committee, and to each of the

committee members Dr. Richard J. Anderson, Dr. Charles R.

Foster, Dr, Elmer D. Hinokley, Dr. J. B. White# and Dr.

We Max Wise for their valuable aid and encouragement.,

Sincere thanks is due Dr. Vynce A. Hines for his counsel

concerning the hypothesis of the study and Dr. Herbert

A. Meyer for his advice about the statistical procedure.

Acknowledgment should also be made to all my

graduate student associates for their kindly criticism

and advice concerning the 'iisertation.











TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . ii

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . v

Chapter

It INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM, & . 1
The Problem . . . . # a 6
Limitations of the Study* .* e o * # 7
Need for the Studyo * # # # # # * 9
Purpose of the Study.* 9 # # 0 # # 15
Presentation of the Study # # # # # 15

II. THE NATURE OF IEMPATHY. , . 16
Empathy and Related Concepts. . . # 16
The Psychological Mechanism of Empathy* # 21
Empathy as a Factor in Socialization* # # # 25
An Operational Concept of Empathy and Its
Measurement . . . #. # . . 26
Observations on the Occurrence and Use
of Empathy * * . . . . 27
Summary 0. . . . a * * 32

III* RELATED STUT-IES. . . . 33
Techniques Used to Measure Empathy. # 34
Refinements in the Measurement of
Empathy . . . . # # . 40
Summary a # a # o # # o 42

IV. THE SIGNIFICANCE OP F MPATHY TO STUDENT
PERSONN.L 'JKORK . . . . . . .. 43
Aims and Objectives of Higher Education 45
The Philosophy of Student Personnel Work, 48
Implementation of the Student Personnel
Philosophy * * # # # # # # # # o 50
Empathy and Personnel Work* . . . a 52
Summary * * . o . * 57

V. EMPATHY AND SCHOLASTIC SUCCESS . . . 58
The Rationale of the Study. 58
The Test of Empathy # ... . 59
Scoring of the Test. .# 61
The Selection of Subjects and
Administration of the Test* a 62
Sources of the Data . . 64


iii










TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

Analysis and Interpretation of the Data 66
Summary . . . # . . .* 83

VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS ANID IMPLICATIONS. *. . 84
Summary. . # # . 0 84
Philosophical Summary. . .. . . 84
Historical Summary . .# * 86
Empathy and Scholastic Success . 87
Empathy and Student Personnel Work . 89
Implications for Personnel Workers. . . 90
Guiding Principles. . . 90
Administrative Principles. # # 91
Needed Studies . . . . . 92
General Implications and Conclusions. . 94

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . 97

APPEIDICES . . . . . . . . . . 102

A* The Empathy Test, Part I # . . . # 105

B. The Empathy Test, Part II * # # # * 106

C. Letter from Henry Chauncey, President,
Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J.. 109

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA .9 . . . . . . . . 110












LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. A. C. F. (L) Scores, Empathy Test Scores,
and Grade Point Averages of Fifty-five
College Freshmen .* ... . 67

2. Subjects in Rank Order by Empathy Score 68

30 Subjects in Rank Order by Grade Point
Average . . . . . . . . .* 69

4. Subjects in Rank Order by A. C. E. (L)
Score . . . # * * * . 70

5. Calculation of the Coefficient of Corre-
lation Between Empathy Test Scores and
A. C. E. (L) Scores * * * * *. . 72

6. Calculation of the Coefficient of Corre-
lation Between Empathy Test Scores and
Grade Point Averages . o o. .* * 73

7, Calculation of the Coefficient of Corre-
lation Between A. C. E. (L) Scores and
Grade Point Averages . . .. 75

8. Calculation of the Mean and S. D. of Em-
pathy Scores . . . . . o 76

9. Calculation of the Mean and S. D. W
Grade Point Averages * * * * o 77

10. Calculation of the Mean and S. D. of A. C.
E. (L) Scores . . . . . . . 78

11. Calculation of Partial Coefficients of
Correlation * *...... * * 9 79

12. Calculation of Multiple Coefficient of Corre-
lation of A. C. E. (L) Score and Empathy
Test Score, With Grade Point Average . 82














CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION ATND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

In the daily interaction of people some individuals

appear to have certain qualities not found in others, at least

not to the same extent. Some of these qualities appear to

contribute to successful social interaction. The qualities

in which this study is interested are those of sensitivity

or awareness to the needs and desires of others* They are,

among others, qualities of warmth and affection. These qual-

ities in a leader, will aid him in seeing the attitudes and

feelings of his students or constituents. Furthermore, the

individual who has these qualities, perceives more clearly

what is expected of him by a leader, a teacher, or his com-

radeso Individuals with this ability are thought of as being

more "human". They not only understand themselves but also

the reasons for the actions and beliefs of their associates*

They seem to be able to put themselves in another's place#

"This ability," states Reumners, "holds every promise of being

the 'giftie' of Robert Burns: 'To see ourselves as others see
U81"0l


1H. H. Remuers, "A Quantitative Index of Social-
Psychological Empathy," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
XX (January, 1950), 164,....








2

Understanding other people is the most complex prob-

lem in the realm of perception. In every day situations, one

depends necessarily on his capacity to perceive and predict

the behavior, thoughts, and feelings of the other person:

Presumably, one abstracts some vague generaliza-
tions of the personality from the variety of observed
situations and actions, or expressed thoughts and feel-
ings of another. On the basis of such an abstraction,
the observer makes predictions, accurately or Inac-
curately, about the person he perceives. Our social-
ization is reared on this foundation of perception of
persons in terms of prediction. The credit manager
forecasts the ability and willingness of the customer
to pay his bills* The diplomat forecasts the readi-
ness of his via a via to accept or reject propositions*
The therapist makes not only a diagnosis but a prog-
nosis of his client. All the subtle interchanges of
love and friendship rest, howsoever insecurely, on this.-
tenuous skill in perception and prediction,2

Individual perceptions are in many instances inade-

quate and because of their importance in every day social re-

lationships there is need to know a great deal more about the

nature and degree of such abilities. Social psychologists

have observed these phenomena and have termed this ability

to perceive the attitudes and feelings of another, empathy

or roleotaking.

The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel provides evidence

concerning the recognition of these concepts in Biblical

times. Ezekiel, at the command of the Lord, entered into

Israel to remonstrate with the Israelites and explain to
Q\
2I E. Bender, and Ae H. Hastorf, "The Perception
of Persons: Vorecasting Another Person's Response on Three
Personality Scales," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psay-
chology, XLV (July, 1950), 556.










them their transgressions. Ezekiel was instructed to live

among the Israelites in order to understand their viewpoint.

He described the experience of putting himself in the place

of the Israelites$

Then I came to them of the captivity at Tel-abib,
that dwelt by the river of Chebar* and I sat where
they sat and remained there astonie d-"amoRngWEh
severn"ays.3

Theodore Lippe (1851 1914) a German psychologist

was especially interested in the nature of human responses

in activities related to the arts. Rugg has summarized

Lipps theory thus:

He insisted that act and object, all the elements
of the whole situation, constitute a unity* The human
being not only makes himself one with the entire situ-
ation, the feels himself into' the object he has con-
templated.-

Lipps called his theory "einfuhling", generally

translated "empathy".

The philosopher Mead described a similar phenomenon

as role-taking, an essential mechanism in exercising intelli-

gence:

***..the process of exercising intelligence is the process
of delaying, organizing, and selecting a response or
reaction to the stimuli of the given environmental situ-
ation. The process is made possible by the mechanism
of the central nervous system, which permits the indi-
vidualts taking of the attitude of the other toward him-
self, and thus becoming an object to himself. This is

3Ezekiel 31l5.
4Harold Rugg, Foundations for American Education,
p* 211. New York: worldl d Book Company, 1947.








4

the most effective means of adjustment to the social en-
vironment, and indeed to the environment in general,
that the individual has at his disposal
There appears to be little doubt that empathy and

role-taking are synonymous* The relationship of empathy and

role-taking as similar mental processes is found in this

statement by Rogers; "The ability to empathize may be another

way of saying that one person is capable of taking the role

of the other *.,*"6
The continuing interest in social sensitivity or
empathic ability leads to the problem of determining how gen-

eralized the ability may be& Dymond was led to effect an op-

erational definition of empathy in an attempt to measure em-

pathic ability "The imaginative transposing of oneself into

the thinking, feeling, and acting of another and so structur-

ing the world as he does is termed empathy."7
Dymond proceeded to develop a scale of empathic

ability by measuring the disparity between a subject's pre-

dictions of the responses of an associate and the responses

which an associate actually makes.8 The total deviation Is

5George Ho Mead, Mind, Self and Society, p. 99.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1934a
6Carl R. Rogers, Client-Centered Counseling, p. 548.
New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951

7Rosalind F. Dymond, "A Scale for the Measurement of
AEmpathic Ability", Journal of Consulting Psychology, XIII
(April, 1949), 127.. .
8lbid., p. 128.








a
assumed to be a measure of empathic ability the smaller

the deviation, the better the empathy score. Dymond measur-
ed this trait in different people and found she could predict

differences among individuals.9 However, evidence suggests

that Dymond's measure of empathy is subject to the Influence

of projection by the subject making the rating.10
Bender and Hastorf termed Dymondfs measure "raw em-

pathy", and proceeded to make refinements of the empathic

measurements. As a result of their study, they have conclud-
ed that the evidence is convincing for using a refined empathy

score (with correction applied for the effect of projection)

as an operational measure of empathic ability. Furthermore#

their refined empathy score is consistent enough that it
appears to be a measure of generalized empathic ability or

social sensitivity.1

The observations of social scientists and clinicians
find evidence that it is through the empathic process that the

individual achieves selfhood, understanding of others, and

9Dymond, "Personality and Empathy", Journal of Con-
sulting Psychology, XIV (October, 1950), 349.

10A, H. Hastorf, and I. E. Bender, "A Caution Re-
specting the Measurement of Empathic Ability", Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVII (April, 12) p. 574-
76.
ll* E. Bender, and A. H. Hastorf, "On Measuring
Generalized Empathic Ability*', Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, XLVIII (October, 19553), 505.e"-








6

insight about oneself,12 It would appear that the social ad-

justment which is facilitated by this process may also prove

a facilitating mechanism in a learning situation. At this

point, one might suggest that an experiment be made to ascer-

tain the relationship between such an ability as empathy with

some measure of learning.

The Problem

The supposition of this study is stated as a null

hypothesis: that students with high empathic ability achieve

no better scholastic success, as measured by grade point

standing, than those with low empathic ability.

More specifically it is the intent of the study tot

1. Determine whether a significant relationship ex-

ists between empathic ability and scholastic success when in-

telligence, as measured by the American Council on Education

Psychological Examination ("L" or verbal score), is maintain-

ed constant.

2. Describe the implications of these findings for

student personnel workers#

The instrument to measure empathy will be that de-

vised by Bender and Hastorf3 in which a refined index of

12Gardner Murphy, Personality: A Biosocial Approach
to Origins and Structure, pp. 545, 546. New York: Harper and
Brother, 1947,
13I1 E. Bender, and A. H. Hastorf, "On Measuring
Generalized Empathic Ability", Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, XLVIII (October, 1953), 503-06.








7

empathy has been shown to be a consistent measure of a gener-

alized ability. The test will be given to a group of under-

graduate college students. The student's grade point stand-

ing and his score on the American Council on Education Psy-

chological Examination (A.C.*F), will be obtained from offi-

cial records of the University.

The independent relationship of the t". :'. variables;

empathy, Intelligence, and grade point average will be com-

pared using the method of partial correlation. The findings

of this experiment will be used as a basis for accepting or

rejecting the (null) hypothesis of the study# The implica-

tions of these findings will be discussed from the viewpoint

of the philosophy and practices of student personnel work.

Limitations of the Study

I. This study does not suggest new procedures in

student personnel work. It does attempt to show whether

there may be implications for personnel workers in improv-

ing the workability of empathy among students.

2. It is important to realize that the rejection of

a null hypothesis does not force the acceptance of a contrary

view.14 A significant statistical correlation between empathic

14J. J. B. Morgan, "Credence Given to One Hypothesis
Because of the Overthrow of It's Rivals," American Journal of
Psychology, LVIII (January, 1945), 62.










ability and grade point standing does not necessarily prove

that empathic ability affects scholastic success; it simply

means that high and low empathizers do actually differ in

scholastic success. But the acceptance of a positive hypoth-

esis -- it should be noted -- is usually the end result of a

series of experiments* Furthermore, it is a logical as well

as a statistical conclusion.

3* The American Council on Education Psychological

Examination (L or verbal score) used to measure intelligence

has been shown to have a relatively high correlation with in-

dividual and group teats purported to measure abstract Intelli-

gence.15 In Super16, Anderson and others reported correlations

of f49 and .51 between two different forms of the A.C.E. (L)

test and the Wechsler-Bellevue individual test of intelligence#

4. Scholastic success, as measured by grade point

standing, has many shortcomings as a measure of success; how-

ever, it is an arbitrary dimension against which most colleges

and students expect evaluation. Until better measures of suc-

cess are developed and accepted it remains an expedient and

prevalent criterion against uhich prediction and methods of

improving student performance may be evaluated.

15Donald E, Super, Appraising Vocational Fitness,
p. 118. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949.
16Ibid., p. 118.










Need for the Study

Interest in human nature is probably as old as human

history. There have been many clever individuals possessed

of insight and skill in manipulating human behavior. The

statesmen, writers, and strategists of every age have been

skilled in analyzing human motives and in playing upon human

sentiments, prides, and interests. Only recently has the

knowledge about human nature been systematized and subjected

to scientific analysis.

LaPiere and Farnsworth have defined this new science

of social psychology as: "The study of the processes by which

the human animal acquires from social experience those behav-

ior characteristics which make him a socialized human being.,17
It is evident that this definition is based upon the concept

that the origin of most human behavior lies in social experi-

ence. In other words, what the individual is, depends in part#

upon other individuals.

In general, the aim of social research is to under-

stand social life and thereby gain a greater measure of con-

trol over social behavior. Such research should promote the

happiness and effectiveness of individuals in a society.

Social scientists are only recently aware that behav-

ior cannot be analyzed into component parts in order to

17R. To LaPiere, and Po RB Farnsworth, Social Psy-
chology, p. 3. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1936.










understand the individual or group. On the contrary, there

is increasing emphasis upon studying behavior in action and

more especially social interaction:

...During the decade of 1930 to 1940. ...Social psy-
chology was characterized by a marked acceleration of
a shift in theory and method from atomistic static
analysis of attributes of persons and groups to an ori-
entation and approach which could be called interac-
tional. This trend required theorists and research
workers to explain any given behavior as a functional
part of a specified dynamic system of interacting ele-
ments, According to the emerging conceptions, the be-
havior of persons and groups could not be explained as
the outcropping of the attributes or "nature possessed
by them but as parts of an interactive process in a 1
"field" or situation of which they were component parts

These personal interrelationships are obviously im-

portant to the happiness and effectiveness of man. It is

through understanding others that we learn about ourselves.

As Lindgren says:

Understanding is basic, because knowledge of the
causes of behavior of oneself and others constitutes
the entering wedge of insight and acceptance. Hatred
and intolerance, as well as the other attitudes that
keep people apart and prevent cooperation and agreement,
diminish under the impact of insight and understanding
into one's own feelings and attitudes and the motivation
of others. Understanding everything may not constitute
forgiving everything, but it is the first step on the
road leading to acceptance, tolerance, and respect.1 9

The improvement of human relationships is a concern

between individuals, social groups, racial groups and nations.


18Leonard S. Cottrell, quoted in Walter Coutu,
Emergent Human Nature, (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1949), p. vii.
19Henry Co Lindgren, Psychology of Personal and
Social Adjustment, p, 458. New York: American Book Company,
1953.








11

The happiness and effectiveness of individuals and groups, and

the survival of present civilization will depend upon the co-

operation of people* Mayo2O believes, that such understanding

and eventual cooperation cannot take place without communica-

tion between groups and individuals. Before one can communi-

cate one must have the ability to understand the communication.

A major effort is being put forth in the social sci-

ences to understand the dynamics of social interaction between

groups as well as individuals. Probably the most intensive,
21
as well as best known, have been the studies of Mayoe2. In

educational institutions, Moreno has introduced sociometric

analysis as an aid in understanding human behavior.22 The

psychologist, Kurt Lewin; anthropologist, Margaret Mead; and,

sociologist, Kimball Young; and, others are representative

leaders in the academic disciplines who have accepted an inter-

actional approach to the study of man in his personal relation-

ships.

The improvement of these dynamic relationships awaits

the development of instruments or techniques by which the

quality and/or degree of human interactions may be understood.

20Elton Mayo, The Social Problems of an Industrial
Civilization, p. 22. Andover, Massachusetts: The Andover
Press, 1945a
21Ibid., chap. iv,
22J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive? A New Approach to
the Problem of Human Interrelatlons, Washington, D. D..
Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company, 1954,








12

Stuart Chase, in a recent book, describes this responsibility

of the social scientists

It is important that social scientists realize their
vital new role, and devote themselves with treat single-
mindedness to the task of accumulating more verified
knowledge and ever sharper engineering tools. The future
of civilization, if not of mankind, may depend upon what
they can accomplish in the next few decades.*

One of the sharper engineering tools badly needed is

an index of the ability of individuals and members of groups

to "put themselves in another's shoes"* In psychological

terms, it is the ability to predict, or introject oneself

into, the responses of others, whether individuals or groups,

particularly responses of a social-emotional, attitudinal sort.

This concept is obviously that of empathy*

The empathic processes appear to be a basic mechanism

in the social experiences of man. Through this process, the

individual achieves self-understanding as well as understand-

ing of others# It is necessary to understand others in order

to communicate with them effectively* There must be an aware-

ness about other's feelings, which is frequently at odds with

what the person actually says# At the same time, the indivi-

dual must be aware of his own feelings, which have their ef-

fect on others through the medium of mutual exchange of feel-

ing-tone.


23Stuart Chase, The Proper Study of Mankind, p. 305.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948.










Purpose of the Study --

The specific purpose of this study is to investigate

empathy as a factor in the scholastic success of students.

The grade point standing, as a measure of scholastic success,

is a social symbol in American culture. Scholastic honors

are given to students with outstanding grades. The satisfac-

tory "C" is satirically called the "gentleman's" grade. The
college graduates with superior grades are frequently recom-

mended to employment representatives who visit the campus.

Scholastic failure is frequently a stigma in American culture.

A description of the place of empathy in social con-

cepts will help in understanding the implications about the

influence of empathy on social symbols. More specifically#

it should be purposeful in the study to describe how the em-

pathic process relates to education.

The results of the experimental testing of the hy-

pothesis of this study may have implications concerning the

development of empathy as a factor in scholastic success.

Furthermore, the study may indicate that academic learning

involves mastery of facts rather than sensitivity to the ef-

fect of these facts upon individuals or groups.

The philosophy of personnel work states that its

aim is to educate the total individual. This philosophy

assumes that many abilities in the individual make up the

total person. Recent research has isolated a so-called









14

ability known as empathy. Empathic ability is thought to be

a factor Influencing the social and educative process. In

order to help the individual make use of this ability in his

personal success it would appear that it should be related

to the present accepted measure of personal success -- that

is the scholastic grades. If it appears that this ability

is related to the grade point standing, it would prove the

operation of this ability and the necessity for personnel

workers to make further study of empathy so as to bring about

its improvement or greater workability in the individual.

This ability appears to be a social-focused ability and there-

fore the responsibility for its development would lie in the

hands of personnel workers and all those who deal with stu-

dents.

It is not reasonable to assume that any student is suc-

cessful in college without a certain amount of scholastic

success; therefore, the relationship of empathy to scholas-

tic grades would show the importance of this social-focused

ability in the success of the student. As in all social the-

ory, such an ability is only useful in its relationship to

established goals.

If, on the other hand, this measurement were found not

to *be related to academic goals it may imply that a social

ability, such as empathy, is not necessary in obtaining a col-

lege degree and, programs which develop these abilities may

only be side issues to this objective of the college graduate.










Presentation of the Study

In the following chapters this study will explore

in more precise detail the mechanism of empathy and its im-

portance to student personnel workers. Chapter II will de-

scribe in detail the operation and psychological nature of

empathy. Chapter III is a review of experimental investi-

gations. In Chapter IV, the significance of the basic mech-

anism of empathy will be related to the philosophy and prac-

tices of- student personnel work. The experimental data and

findings of an investigation to determine the relation of

empathy to scholastic success, is presented in Chapter V.

The final chapter will summarize the study as well as state

the conclusions and implications about the importance of

empathy to scholastic success and its significance to per-

sonnel workers, the individual, and society*
















CHAPTER IX


THE NATURE OP EMPATHY

In order to know what empathy is, it is necessary

to clarify its place among related concepts and to under-

stand it as a psychological mechanism. Then it is possible

to see its use in socialization, how it operates, how it can
be measured and most important of all to show its practical

occurrence and use, in every phase of human life*

Empathy and Related Concepts

The term "empathy" itself, presents some problems

since it has been used in literature with a variety of mean-

ings. Also other terms have been used with the same or very

similar meaning to that which will be used in this study,

namely, the imaginative transposing of oneself into the think-

ing, feeling, and acting of another and so structuring the

world as he does. In attempting to explain empathy the term

must be distinguished from such overlapping terms as: sympathy,

insight, identification, and projection.

Mead describes sympathy as arising from the empathic

process:

The attitude that we characterize as that of sympa-
thy in the adult springs from this same capacity to take










role of the other person with whom one is socially In*
plicated. It is not included in the direct response of
help, support, and protection. This is a direct impulse,
or in lower forms, a direct instinct, which is not at
all incompatible with the exercise, on occasion, of the
opposite instincts. The parent, that on occasion acts
in the most ordinary parental fashion may, with seeming
heartlessness, destroy and consume their offspring.
Sympathy always implies that one stimulates himself to
his assistance and consideration of others by taking in
some degree the attitude of the person whom one is as-
sisting. The common term for this is "putting yourself
in his place."s

Koestler too, has reasoned similarly and he states,

"Empathy becomes sympathy when to this mental resonance in

added the desire to collaborate or help."

It is then, possible, to distinguish between empathy

and sympathy as when one perceives the agony of a lost child
(empathy) and the feeling or desire one has to comfort the

wanderer (sympathy). On the other hand, there appears to be

considerable overlapping of these mental processes. As Mur-

phy says:

The earliest forms of sympathy, for example, which,
as we saw earlier depend on analogies between oneself
and another, grow rapidly as one experiences more and
more situations through which he sees others pass, be-
ing thereby permitted to share their experiences by
virtue of an analogy with his own. *.,There is no
sharp line of cleavage between "sympathy" and "empathy"e;
the latter term is usually applied to putting oneself
in the place of either a living or a non-living thing.3

IMead, op. cit., p. 366.
2A Koestler, Insight and Outlook, p. 360. New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1949.
3Murphy, op cite pp. 493-94.










Empathy is viewed, then, as a more objective and neu-

tral process. It may lead to positive feelings and closer

social relations, as when it results in sympathy, but this is

not necessarily the case.

Insight may also be thought of as a product of the

empathic process. It is apparent that empathy contributes

to insight; however, insight requires more profound evalua-

tion of one's own psychological structure. Murphy discrim-

inates thus:

In judging oneself, the first problem is insight, an
objective integral view. ...The rubrics which guide an
individual in learning to judge others are not neces-
sarily useful in judging himself. He struggles autisti-
cally against the use of many of the available cues.
The answer is usually the one which John Levy once gave;
insight can seldom be increased directly by a hammer-
and-tongs method; rather, as a person works with his
deeper problems, with the network of his motives, and
discovers what he really wants, he finds that he has
achieved insight. Insight comes as a late cognitive
expression of the readjustment of the motive pattern.4

Dymond, also, concludes that insight is a product of

the empathic process:

Insight into oneself seems to require the ability
to stand off and look at oneself from the point of view
of others. In order to see ourselves as others see us,
we need to structure the situation from their perspec-
tive or transpose ourselves into their thinking and
feeling* Insight into others also appears to be 5depend-
ent upon the ability to take the role of others.

4Lbid., pp. 659-60.

5Rosalind F. Dymond, "Personality and Empathy,"
Journal of Consulting Psycholog-* XIV (October, 1950), 544.








19
Increasingly, clinicians are coming to accept this
position, particularly those of the Roger's school of client-

centered therapy* In a quotation from Raskin, Rogers states,
"As time has gone by we have come to put increasing stress on

the *client-centerednessB of the relationship because it is

more effective the more completely the counselor concentrates

upon trying to understand the client as the client sees him-

self."6
In contrast to the empathic process which enables one

to structure the social situation, insight, gained through
empathy as well as other mechanisms, is the product of a deep-

er probing of psychological structures.
Identification is the psychological mechanism of mak-

ing one's self another person to the extent of losing ones
own identity. Healy, Bronner, and Bowers, define identifica-
tion as:
**...the unconscious molding of one's own Ego after the
fashion of one who has been taken as a model. Primary
identification is the earliest expression of an emo-
tional tie with a person.
Empathy does not imply that one would unconsciously

like to be the other person or to be implicated emotionally*
Rogers makes this distinction very clearly!

6Rogers, op. cit., p* 50.

7W. Healy, Augusta Bronner, and Annas Mae Bowers,
The Structure and Meaning of Psychoanalysis, p. 230. New
York: Alfred Knopf, 1950.










The experiencing with the client, the living of him
attitudes, is not in terms of an emotional involvement
or emotional identification on the counselor's part, but
rather an empathic identification where the counselor is
perceiving the hopes and fears of the client through im-
mersion in an empathic process...8

Dymond states, "Identification appears to be a very

special kind of role-taking; one that is more lasting, less

frequent, and more emotional than is implied in the term em-

pathy."9

Projection is almost the reverse process of the em-

pathic process. It involves endowing another with one's own

attitudes and feelings. Projection appears to be a normal

mechanism of the infant and to operate in varying degrees in

different Indtviduals into adult life. Murphy says:

From this indeterminateness of the boundaries of the
self, especially in infancy but to some degree through-
out life, follows the process of projection by virtue of
which experiences arising from one's own sensory proc-
ess of projection are felt to belong to others, the
motives of others are judged by analogy with one's own,
and the world1is peopled with individuals essentially
like oneself.A

Dymond also, views empathy and projection as contra-

ry:

Projection seems to be an antithetical process to


8Carl R. Rogers, "The Attitude and Orientation of the
Counselor," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XIII (February,
1949), 86.

Rosalind F. Dymond, "Personality and Empathy," Journal
of Consulting Psychology, XIV (October, 1950), 344.
10Murphy, op. cit., pp. 495-96.










empathy since projection involves the attribution of
one'S own wishes, attitudes and behavior to something#
or some one other than the self* If projection is in-
volved, therefore, the thoughts and feelings of the
self are attributed to the other rather than those of
the other being experienced. The individual who attempts
to understand the behavior of others using projection as
the mechanism, assumes that 'slnce this is how I would
feel I were in his situation, this Is how he must
feel.1

Sympathy appears then to be an emotional product of

empathy and insight a psychological concept which is a prod-

uct of empathy and other mechanisms. Identification, like

empathy involves taking the role of another, but to the ex-

treme where one's own self is lost in the Identification proc-

ess. Projection is seen to be more autistic and personal than

empathy in that the projector attributes his own feeling to

his associates. Empathic ability seems more objective, more

cognitive, and more truly perceptive of the psychological

structure of the other person.

The Psychological Mechanism of Empathy

Empathy takes place the same as any other psycholog-

ical operation in the mind of man. It involves many complex

stimuli to bring about a complex response which in the empath-

ic process is the overall picture a person has of his object.

If the person finds it easy to empathize or put himself into

another's shoes, and accurately predict another's behavior he

may be called a good empathizer.

1lRosalind F. Dymond, "Personality and Empathy",
Journal of Consulting Psychology, XIV (October, 1950), 345.








22

A generalized ability, such as empathy, may be po-

tential in the infant. It is believed that moat people are

empathic and Lindgren quotes this evidence:

*...the problem is more likely one of permitting one's
empathy to function rather than of learning empathy,
for we are normally empathic. As Sullivan and others
have discovered, even infants communicate empathically
with their world. L. B. Murphy found that three-year-
olds showed definite signs of being able to empathize
with their age-mates. Theodore M. Newoomb points out
that the behavior of others seems less arbitrary and
more understandable when one can empathize*

Starting with this assumption it is easy to trace

how this mechanism may be developed in the individual. As

soon as the child has developed to a point where he is able

to think or reflect he gains a concept of self and also of

other selves, other human beings who think and act as he does*

Most children are imaginative. He may call a stick a king

and a box a castle. In his mind he sees things as they are

not. He also may visualize himself as a king and his mother

as a queen. He may wish to pretend that he is his mother

This may be the beginning of empathy.

As the child develops he puts "brakes" on his imag-

inative process. He knows he is imagining he is someone

else. He pretends, Just to amuse himself with the emotions,

perhaps of Heidi returning to her home or Peter Pan flying

through the air, or Superman. As the child becomes an adult

12Lindgren, op. cit*, p. 55.








23

he tones down and channelizes his ability to take roles. He

may briefly and scientifically use them to understand why a

friend or some other person may not care to be a Marine, or

a stamp collector, or why his wife wishes to buy a television

set*
An inventor imagines how a wheel may turn although

he has never seen the wheel turn in that particular way* So

a person may imagine himself as having the problem or peculi-

arity of another and never have experienced it* If the person

assumes the obvious attributes of the object of his empathy

such as (1) what others think of his object, and (2) how his

object behaves toward others, he feels the same social forces

pushing on him that push on the object.

To be able to empathize is the same control of mind

over body as is exercised in any form of both mental and phys-

ical control. If a person can make himself stop being angry

or sad, he can probably make himself feel as sick as his

friend does when, for instance, his friend's child eats dirt*

He then empathizes with his friend. Empathy may come with a

definite control with some people, with others it may come

completely without control when a person can't help feeling

pain when he sees another's cut hand. It all depends on the

operation of the mind and body of the individual.

Many educators believe that if a child is allowed to

be imaginative, he may be more creative as an adult. gOesell










has observed thusm
Now# as always, it is necessary to achieve a working
balance between the individual and society* The danger
is that the culture itself will place too heavy repres-
sions upon this growing organism which is graduating
from mere infancy. *..**The temptation may be for the
adult carriers of the culture to press him top fast and
too heavily in the direction of civilization1

If his mind is not disciplined to the absolute truth

of a situation, he may visualize new imaginative concepts in

science or art, as he grows up. It is reasonable to assume
this may also be true in his ability to visualize himself as

another person if he is not always made to be himself in every

act of his childhood*
Most people may play many roles, even in one days de-

pending on the social circumstances in which he finds himself

or perhaps only because of his own caprice. The empathizer,

in order to predict the behavior of another must assume many

roles to put himself in another person's shoes. This ability

however, is pretty general and most people are to be consid-

ered rather constant in their personalities.

Empathy, like intelligence, is probably a product of

heredity and environment. It cannot be determined how much

of this ability comes from within and how much from without.

It can be compared to many other human abilities such as ar-

tistic or musical abilities* Empathic ability may aid in

13Arnold Gesell, and Francis L. Ilg, Infant and
Child in the Culture of Today, p. 133. New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1943.








25

these abilities. It appears to be more basic than most tal-

ents as thought of generally. It appears to be a clearly

defined part of mants overall creative ability.

Empathy as a Factor in Socialization

As has been mentioned previously in this chapter,

empathic ability appears to be a very definite aid in devel-

oping insight (that is, self knowledge). If a person sees

himself as a social being, he becomes one. He thinks of him-

self in the light of what others think of him, hence his opin-

ion of himself is derived from what he thinks others think of

him. He is, in this way able to look at himself objectively

as he looks at others objectively, in both cases using the

empathic process. Mead, describes the importance of empathy

in socialization:

Intelligence is essentially the ability to solve the
problems of present behavior in terms of its possible
future consequences as implicated on the basis of past
experience -- the ability, that is, to solve the prob-
lems of present behavior in the light of, or by refer-
to, both the past and the future; it involves both mem-
ory and foresight. And the process of exercising intel-
ligence is the process of delaying, organizing, and se-
lecting a response or reaction to the stimuli of the
given environmental situation. The process is made pos-
sible by the mechanism of the central nervous system,
which permits the individual's taking of the attitude
of the other toward himself (empathy, and thus becoming
an object to himself. This is the most effective means
of adjustment to the social environment, and indeed to
the environment in general, that the individual has at
his disposal.14

14Mead, op. cit., p. 100.








26

This perception of the individual not only leads to

reaction to the behavior of others but helps him integrate

his picture of himself. He therefore becomes a well-adjusted

person and he is, at times, able to eliminate his own biased

opinion of himself and still see why others either do or do

not understand him. His own opinion of himself is then, the

opinion of others tempered by his own mind. He then, is a

social being because of the social pressure of others on his

empathic ability which in turn causes him to make himself in-

to a self which is a mixture of his own feelings and the con-

cepts of others.

An Operational Concept of Empathy and Its Measurement

Social interaction is based on role-taking which re-

fers to one's use of the attitudes and feeling of others in

his own behavior toward them; that is, in interaction one as*

sumes the relevant attitudes and feelings of the other person,

rehearses it within one's self, and then responds to one's own

rehearsal.

The ability to use the attitudes and feelings of an-

other clearly depend upon one's perceiving in the same manner

as another. It is physically impossible that one can per-

ceive from the same point of vantage as another. Although

the perceptions of two people may be similar, they are never

the same. The nearest approximation to another's perception

can only be achieved by imagining oneself in his place.








27

Proceeding from this reasoning, empathy will be defined as

the imaginative transposing of oneself into the thinking, ,

feeling, and acting of another.
From this definition of empathy, it is obvious from

a common sense point of view that there is a good deal of in-

dividual variation in this ability. Some people appear to be
very sensitive to cues as to how others are feeling and re-

acting while others appear to be grossly unaware of the

thought and feelings of others. An empathic teacher inter-

prets the facial expressions of students accurately and de-

termines their readiness to proceed to a complex problem.

The measurement of empathic ability, therefore, is a measure

of how accurately one can predict the behavior of another -

a product of attitudes and feelings. The usual method of

studying empathy is to measure the disparity between a sub-

Ject's predictions of the responses of an associate and the

responses which an associate makes. The total deviation is

assumed to be a measure of empathic ability the smaller

the deviation, the better the empathy score.

Observations on the Occurrence and Use of Empathy

Empathy has been shown previously to be a contrib-
uting mechanism in achieving selfhood, as well as being the

basis of much of intelligent behavior. Such an ability used

effectively, would appear to be of great practical purpose

to the individual and to society. Coutu has summarized some










of the implications:
Advantages to the person:
1, Enables one to anticipate the probable behavior of
another# thus forming a primary mechanism of social ad-
Justment.
2. Provides one with a reference for an accurate
concept of ones self, Anticipating the response of an-
other to one's own act, thereby interpreting, giving
meaning to, one's concept of one's self* By this process
a person defines his own social situations.
3. Furnishes the basis for confidence in ones self.
4. Gives others confidence in a person, for it is
empirical evidence of his consideration for them, which
in practically all groups is defined as good manners, and
generally arouses immediate social approval and coopera-
tion, Our traditions which encourage parents and others
to treat children as playthings prevents our treating
them as people and putting ourselves in their place*
Those who work with "problem children" are constantly
frustrated by the difficulty of making parents and other
adults see children as people* Children do not appear
to them as "others"; they are just youngsters.
5* Widens one's own experience thus broadening and
enriching the personality and providing increased oppor-
tunities for self actualization.
6. Stizmlates others to show affection for you*
7. By it one gains knowledge of the rights of others
and it therefore places one in a position to see and
measure components in the field to which one would not
otherwise be sensitive.
8e Places one in a position of leadership in many
situations with all that this involves as a function in
human relationships.
9* Contributes to ones ability to understand the
workings of one's world and outs down the toxic flow of
adrenalin.
Advantages to society:
i. Taking the role of the other is a means by which
others gain confidence in themselves and this makes for
better social adjustment,
2* The recognition of the rights of others reduces
conflict and increases cooperation*
3,. Encourages others to assume social responsibil-
itieseA

i'Walter Coutu, Emergent Human Nature, pp. 291-92.
New York: Alford Knopf, 1949.








29

This list suggests that empathy may be a factor for

consideration in many human activities Including education

industry, social activities and family-life, as well as others.

In short, through role-taking or empathy one finds that what-

ever one does to others he does to himself at the same time

and this explains the destructive power of hate and arrogance,

and the constructive power of consideration for others in hu-

man adjustment.

The ability to take the role of the other is a means

of developing communication. As Mead says, "One may seeming-

ly have the symbol of another language, but if he has not any

common ideas with those who speak the language, he cannot

communicate with them."16 Previously, the development of self-

hood has been shown to be a product of empathy. In similar

fashion and from a common sense point of view, t Ie individual

learns the language and common ideas by taking the role of
/
others to observe how words and ideas affect himself. With-

out these common experiences no communication or interaction,

as usually understood, would be possible. One of the great

problems facing people today, on all levels, is communication.

Clearly the "cold war" between the United States and Russia

is in no small part due to communication failure; the two na-

tions cannot talk to one another, It is not the only example.

Strikes and labor-management difficulties are often the result


16Mead, op, cite p. 259.








30

of communication failure. So are many factional rows inside
a country, squabbles within organizations, deadlocks in com-

mittee meetings, personal fights and even the schizophrenia
of a single tortured mind. On every level communication

lines may be blocked and severed completely when people fail

to understand the other. Elton Mayo in Social Problems of an
Industrial Civilization emphasizes the enormous importance of

this problem;
I believe that social study should begin with careful
observation of what may be described as communication;
that is, the capacity of an individual to communicate his
feelings and ideas to another, the capacity of groups to
communicate effectively and intimately to each other.
This problem is beyond all reasonable doubt the outstand-
ing defect that civilization is facing today. ...**Our
international troubles are unquestionably due to the fact
that effective communication between different national
groups was not accomplished. ...On the contrary, an ef-
fort was often made to "find a formula", a logical state-
ment which should conceal the fact that neither side haf
any insight into the actual situation of tLe other. **o'
Empathy is a mechanism of communication, making for

the froe flow of ideas through structured channels within
groups of all sizes, and between groups, up to the great na-

tional and international units.

In the preface of his book# Social Dnams Ac, Oitt"
ler,1 a sociologist, refers to the distinction made by
Cooley twenty-five years ago between two sorts of knowledge.


17Mayo, op.2. cit., pp. 22-25.
18Joseph B. Gittler, Social Dynamics, p. vil. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company7, 1952










"One, the development of sense contacts into knowledge of

things," he called spatial and material knowledge. "The sec-

ond is developed from contact with the minds of other men,

through communication, which sets going a process of thought

and sentiment similar to theirs and enables us to understand

them by sharing their states of mind." This he designated as

social knowledge. Gittler has explained the importance of

this latter sort of knowledge in a learning situation:

Detailed case studies, because of their vivid and
dramatic accounts of human experiences and social re-
lationships, tend to transmit that type of knowledge
which Cooley defines as social. Case materials, ade-
quately recorded, reveal those aspects of human behav-
ior which the reader can comprehend with sympathetic
interpretation. Knowledge of human nature demands
that one assume the role of the other and experience
with emotion and empathy, the other's covert nature -
his attitudes, values feelings -- as well as his mani-
fest overt character*.9

If learning is looked upon as a sort of "experienc-
ing into" a situation, as well as sheer mastery or memoriza-

tion of fact, it appears that an ability which permits the

taking of the role of another facilitates "experiencing into"

a situation. Clayton, in his study of Mead's bio- social be-

haviorism, finds this implication for education:

Mead sees at the heart of the learning process the
mechanism whereby one takes the attitude of the other.
The factory workers' son learns about the farmer's life
by taking the attitude of the farmer toward his environ-
ment. The pupil learns about his physical environment
by taking the attitude of the scientist, engineer, car-
penter, banker, or soldier. This in Mead's opinion is

19Ibid., p. vii.








32

the pattern of all reflective learning and the task of
the agency that is designated to teach the young is to
become increasingly clear on the nature and implications
of this process.0

Such an account of intermediate steps in the learn-

ing process provides a view of learning that can be put to the

pragmatic test. When learning is described as the act of tak-

ing the attitude of the other, this explanation of learning

can be tried out and shown to make an operational difference.

Summary

Empathy aenr can be seen as an important psycholog-

ical ability. Psychologists, philosophers, and educators

have all pointed out its great importance in shaping human

reactions.



















2OAlfred S. Clayton, Emergent Mind and Education.
pp. 91-92. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University,
Contributions to Education, No. 867, 1943.














CHAPTER III


RELATED STUDIES

It is the purpose of this study to determine whether

empathy or the ability to predict the responses of another is

associated with scholastic success. In the previous chapter,
social theory and clinical evidence have shown empathy to be V

an important mechanism in developing selfhood, understanding

of others, and insight into oneself. Furthermore# it has been

hypothesized that this socialization process, achieved through

the empathic process, amy also prove a facilitating mechanism

in a learning situation. The acceptance by this study of

Dymondts operational definition of empathy# "The imaginative

transposing of oneself into the thinking, feeling, and acting-

of another and so structuring the world as he does#l provides

a description of empathy that can be subjected to measurement

and its influence determined in given situations. This writ-

er, in a survey of related literature finds no experimental

evidence to support the implication that empathy may facili-

tate learning. However, as a result of sustained efforts to
define and measure empathic ability, it would appear that the

relationship of empathy and learning or scholastic success can

1Rosalind F. Dymond, "A Scale for the Measurement of
Empathic Ability,* Journal of Consulting Psychology, XIII
(April, 1953)# 14.










be put to an experimental test.
In a review of literature about studies in empathy,

Gage suggests why personnel workers should study this process

For guidance workers it (empathy) has two kinds of
importance. First, understanding others is an important
aspect of the counselor's job. If we knew how to meas-
ure and improve perception of others, we would have an
important aid in the selection and training of guidance
counselors and, more generally, of teachers conceived
as guidance workers.
Secondly, perception of others it an important fac-
tor in the personalities of the clients' or pupils'
with whom guidance counselors are concerned* Effective-
ness in interpersonal relationships, or in social inter-
action, is an important aspect of the vocational, educa-
tional, and personal competence of all of us. When
guidance counselors are better able to appraise their
client' or pupils' understanding of others, they will
have an improved basis for counseling and guidance con-
cerning activities and occupations which depend upon ef-
fectiveness in interpersonal relationships

Techniques Used to Measure Empathy

The astonishing rapidity with which first impressions
are made can easily be demonstrated. While riding in a bus

or train one may close his eyes and turn his head toward some

passenger not previously observed. Now open the eyes for a

brief glimpse of this person for two or three seconds, and
then with eyes closed introspect upon the impressions as they
arise. Here is a person never before seen and completely un-

known. With btut the briefest visual perception, a complex
mental process is aroused, resulting within a very short time

2N. L. Gage, "Explorations in the Understanding of
Others"# Educational and Psychological Measurements, XIII
(April 1955), 14 . ... ... ..








35

in judgment of the age, sex, size, nationality, profession,

and social caste of the stranger, together with some estimate

of his temperament, his past suffering, his "hardness", his

ascendance, friendliness, neatness, and even his trustworthi-

ness and integrity, Now some people appear to make these es-

timates more accurately than others. Sir Conan Doyle attrib-

uted an uncanny perceptive ability to the success of his fie-

tional character, Sherlock Holmes.

"The ability to judge people," while important enough

to serve the psychologist Allport3 as a chapter heading, has

been studied by only a few investigators. As reported by

Allport,4 Estes asked Judges to rate certain subjects after

observing brief motion pictures of their behavior. He found

that the group of best Judges were one-third more correct than

the poorest group, while the best single Judge was two-thirds

better than the poorest Judge.

In Allport,5 Adams had eighty girls rate themselves
and each other on forty-six variables. In no trait did the

ability to rate others attain a coefficient greater than *42

but the ability to rate self was found to be differentiated

from the ability to rate others.

In an ambitious study of the qualities of a good

3G. W. Allport, Personality, pp. 499-522. New Yorks
Henry Holt and Company, 1957.
4Ibdo., pp. 507-09.

lbid., p. 609








36
Judge of personality, Vernon6 found "an extreme absence of
consistency," and concludes that "it is not possible to dis-
cuss the characteristics of a good or bad Judge of personal-

ity in general.*7 Yet on tha basis of many but rather thin
coefficients of correlation Vernon finds himself able to

state that, "good Judges of friends and associates are less
socially inclined and less intelligent, but more artistic
than good self-Judges."8
Dymond,9 on the other hand, finds a significantly

positive relation between insight into self and empathy,
-"the imaginative transposing of oneself into another," In

her study she secured four ratings from each subject; (1)
rating of himself, (2) rating oi another, (3) how he thought
the other person would rate himself, and (4) how he thought

the other person would rate him. On the basis of the find-
ings of this test, Dymond concludes, *The ability that is
concerned here, seeing things from the other person's point
of view, is one in which individuals obviously differ from

6p. E. Vernon, "Some Characteristics of the Good
Judge of Personality", Journal of Social Psychology, IV (Jan-
uary, 1933), 42-58.
7Ibid., p, 56.

8Ibid., p. 67,

9Rosalind F. Dymond, "A Preliminary Investigation of
the Relation of Insight and Empathy", Journal of Consulting
Psychology, XII (June, 1948), 127.










one another."10
Using the Weohsler-Bellevue intelligence test, the

Rorschach personality test, the Thematic Apperception Test,

and the California Ethnocentrism test, together with the sub-

ject's own self-analysis, Dymond sketches the personality
picture of the high and low empathizers

Those whose empathy is high are outgoing, optimistic,
warm, emotional people, who have a strong interest in
others. They are flexible people whose emotional rela-
tions with others, particularly their early family rela-
tions have been sufficiently satisfying so that they find
investing emotionally in others rewarding. Their own
level of security is such that they can afford an inter-
est in others. While they are emotional people, their
emotionality is well-controlled and richly enjoyed.
Those lowLin empathy are rather rigid, introverted
people who are subject to outbursts of uncontrolled emo-
tionality* They seem unable to deal with concrete mate-
rial and interpersonal relations very successfully* They
are either self-centered and demanding in their emotion-
al contacts or else lone wolves who prefer to get along
without strong ties to other people. Their own early
relationships within the family seem to have been so dis-
turbed and unsatisfying that they feel they cannot afford
to invest their love in others as they need it all for
themselves. They seem to mistrust others, to encapsulate
themselves and not to be well integrated with the world
Of reality. They seem to compensate for their lack of
emotional development by stressing the abstract intellec-
tual approach to life as the safest. Some of those in
this group seem to be aware of their patterns and of the
nature of their unsatisfactory adjustmnet to other peo-
ple; others have rationalized their behavior to the ex-
tent of developing a role of superiority which satisfies
them. The mere fact that they are so inwardly oriented
and rigid in their structure makes it impossible for
them to empathize with others successfully* It is unim-
portant to them to know what the other is thinking and
feeling; it is their own thoughts and feelings that

lOIbid., po 1325S










count.11
A similar technique to that of Dymond was developed

by Remnners12 while working on an experimental design for re-
ducing the "gap" between management and labor, which he calls

measuring reciprocal empathy. Uhing this technique a number

of students at Purdue University have completed studies con-
cerning reciprocal empathy in widely separated problems.

This technique suggested by Renmers, and used in this group
of studies consists in having an individual or group, A# an-

swer a set of relevant attitude questions. A is then asked

to give the response that he would expect from another Indi-

vidual or group, Be A is asked to respond a third time to

this same set of questions as he would expect B to predict
Ats response to these questions. B is then subjected to these
same procedures.
Van Zelst14 in an investigation of an Empathy Test
16
by Kerr and Speroff#1 used four criteria for purposes of

lDymond, "Personality and Empathy", Journal of Con-
sulting Psychology, XIV (October, 1950), 349.
12Remmers, op. cit., pp. 161-65.
1!. H. Remmers, "A Quantitative Index of Social-
Psychological Empathy", American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
XX (January, 1950), 161-65.
1"Raymond Van Zelst, "Validation Evidence on the
Empathy Test", Educational and Psychological Measurements,
XIII (Autumn, 1953), 474-77.
15WO A. Kerr, and B. J. Speroff, The Empathy Test,
Chicago: Psychometric Affiliates, 1951.








39

validation: interpersonal desirability or sociometric status,

"How Supervise?"16 test scores Job satisfaction, and a self-

judgment score. Multiple correlations between the Empathy

Test and the first three criteria, and between the Empathy

Test with "How Supervise?" were .66 and .62 respectively.

Van Zelst concluded that these intercorrelations, as well as

those of previous researchers, suggest that the Empathy Test

is useful in the selection of leaders, sales personnel, and

counselors.

In an attempt to measure individual differences in

perceptual ability, Bender and Hastorf17 compared obtained

scores and forecast scores. A group of undergraduates filled

out three personality scales (obtained scores). The same

subjects attempted to predict the exact verbal responses of

one or two acquaintances in this group on these same three

scales (forecast scores),* The experimenters obtained the

following results: (1) low positive correlation between ob-

tained and forecast scores on each of the three scales; (2)

no apparent consistency in forecasting ability either when

forecasting for a subject on the three scales or when fore-

casting on the same for two different subjects; and (3) the

16
16How Supervise?, ed. by Quentin W. File, and He H.
Remmers, New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1954.
171I E. Bender, and A. H. Hastorf, "The Perception
of Persons: Forecasting Another Person's Response on Three
Personality Scales", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycho-
logy, XLV (July, 1950), 556-61.










emergence of projection on one of the scales*
The results of this study emphasize the fact that

part of the successful prediction of another person's re-

sponses may be due to projection rather than empathy and

that a refined measure of empathic ability will approximate

more adequately the psychological aspects of empathy when it

is defined as the imaginative transposing of oneself into

the thinking, feeling, and acting of another and so strua -

turing the world as he does*

Refinements in the Measurement of Empathy

Proceeding from the results of their experiment,

Hastorf and Bender18 reasoned that the next step would seem

to be to obtain predictions from individuals for a number of
their associates who differ in the amount of their similarity

with the predictor. This data could then be used to deter-

mine more clearly the relationship between similarity, pro-

jection, and empathy. Furthermore, when a person has made

a number of predictions, analysis could be made of the con-

sistency of his projection and empathy scores.

In a test of this point of view, Bender and Hastorf19

18A* H. Hastorf, and I# E. Bender, "A Caution Re-
specting the Measurement of Empathic Ability", Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVII (April, 1O5, 6574 76.
19I, E. Bender, and A. H. Hastorf, "On Measuring
Generalized Empathic Ability", Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology XLVIII (October, 1953), 505-06.








41

conducted a further study to define more clearly the interre-

lationships of refined empathy with similarity, projection,

and raw empathy. The study was designed to have a forecaster

predict for four associates and thus to provide an approach

to an analysis of the consistency of each of the variables.

A scale of forty-two items was administered to fifty

subjects who then attempted to predict the responses of four

associates who also responded to the same scale* Four devia-

tion scores (the sum of the differences between a person's

response and the forecaster's prediction) were obtained from

the data for the variables of similarity, projection, raw

empathy, and refined empathy. The refined empathy score was

derived by subtracting the raw empathy score from the projec-

tion score* It was found that while the raw empathy score

was significantly correlated with similarity, the refined em-

pathy score was not correlated with similarity. Furthermore,

it was found that the refined empathy score showed a fair de-

gree of consistency, although the greatest consistency was

shown by the projection scores. The experimenters concluded,

"The data clearly indicate that there is a generalized tend-

ency for some of the subjects to project consistently and for

others to have empathic ability."0


20Ib__d* p, 506.











Sumary

The studies reviewed in this chapter have shown that

individuals do differ in their ability to predict the re-

sponses of another and that this generalized ability is akin

to the psychological mechanism of empathy. Those whose em-

pathy is high have been characterized as outgoing, optimis-

tic warm, emotional people, who have a strong interest in

others. Furthermore, Kerr and Speroff have found this abil-

ity is unrelated to intelligence and most basic aptitudes.

The technique of measuring empathy developed by

Dymond and refined by Bender and Hastorf and, purported to

measure, "the imaginative transposing of oneself into the

thinking, feeling, and acting of another and so structuring

the world as he does," appears to be a measure of empathy or

one's ability to predict the responses of another. Further-

more, it has been shown that the refinement of the empathy

score (corrected for the influence of projection) brings about

a consistency of prediction that appears to be a measure of

a generalized ability.

The summary of literature, and conclusions reached

by Gage, clearly emphasize that when counselors are better

able to appraise their clients' or students# understanding

of others, they will have an improved basis for counseling

concerning activities and occupations which depend upon ef-

fectiveness in interpersonal relationships.
















CHAPTER IV


THE SIGNIFICANCE OP EMPATHY TO

STUDENT PERSONNEL WORK

To understand the role of empathy in personnel works

the interpretation of the basic philosophy of such work must

be shown. The personnel philosophy or point of view points

out that the total individual should be educated. In order

to carry out this ideal in anything but a highly superficial

manner the interaction of individuals must be considered.

The mechanism of empathy can then be seen to be a factor of

great importance in social interaction and, therefore, highly

important in personnel work,


Aims and Objectives of Higher Education

The purpose or purposes of student personnel work

must be examined from the broader view of the objectives of

higher education. Student personnel work is not an end in

itself but is a means of helping students achieve their goals

in institutions of higher education#

A little more than a decade ago, Lloyd-Jones and

Smith, as a result of a survey of literature and practices

concluded, that there are two major cleavage lines in the

43








44

philosophies of those who work in the field of higher educa-

tion. The first of these lines tends to divide: (1) those

who interpret "preparation for life" predominantly in a vo-
cational, professional, utilitarian sense from, (2) those who

interpret "preparation for life" from a broader standpoint

as Including properly one's ability to function successfully

in non-vocational activities and relationships; those who be-

lieve there is an "art of living" which is as important as

the "business of earning a living."1

The present age is an era of materialism, insofar

that people are gauged in terms of wealth or their ability

to earn money* These aspects of wealth have a value in the

society. However, they are not the sole measure of the indi-

vidual's value to himself or to others, A popular list of

the most valuable members of society conceivably would not

include those with top incomes in this country. Few of the

greatest men of history seem to have been animated primarily

by economic reward. The majority of women probably would not

concede that their life consisted most importantly of money-

making activities. A happy marriage or family life is not a

consequence of economic success.

Each student in higher education, in addition to
learning more or less directly how to do something for

Esther Lloyd-Jones, and Margaret R. Smith, A Stu-
dent Personnel Program for Higher Education, p. 7. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938.










society that will have economic rewards for the doer,
must also learn to be someone who can contribute to soci-
ety other values than purely economic ones.

Lloyd-Jones and Smith report the second cleavage be-

tween philosophies of higher education separates: (1) those

who tend to think of education primarily in terms of a body

of culture to be transmitted, from (2) those who think of edu-

cation as a process that goes on in those who are to be modio

ifled by, and who are (incidentally) to transmit, that cul*
e3
ture.5

The educator who tends to think of education prima-

rily as a body of culture to be transmitted are usually schol-

ars, intent on increasing the body of scholarship itself

They view education as intellectual development per so. On

the other hand, an increasing number of educators, well-ground-

ed in the social and biological sciences, are as cognizant of

the importance of the emotional, social and physical aspects

of the student as they are of the purely intellectual.

In our opinion, the student personnel program must
take it# stand with those who conceive of the student
not only as an intellect, but also as a total organism
whose learning, *..*are importantly conditioned by the
way he acts and feels, as well as by the words he reads
and hears and by his logical thought.

In the past century educators have argued and put

into practice one or another of these philosophies.

21bid., p. 8.

3Ibid., p. 9.

4Ibid., p. 11.








46

Contemporaries, such as Hutchino, maintain that: "The univer-

sity is intellectual. It is wholly and completely so."5 "In

general education we may wisely leave experience to life and

set about our job of intellectual training."6 "The three

worst words in education are *character, t personality#, and
'factst'"7

From quite a different point of view, men like

Wriston of Brown University proclaim, "College is an experi-

ence both individual and social; it is intellectual, physical,

emotional, spiritual. It is a time for the maturation of per-

sonality,"8

This latter philosophy is becoming more respectable

as a result of social research. This trend is apparent in a

historical review presented by Duffus:

The old pattern of college education broke down as
new subjects forced their way into the curriculum; the
result of this breakdown was a period of educational
anarchy in which it became almost impossible for edu-
cators to agree on the content or objectives of a col-
lege course, and in which educational standards were
threatened because no one could define them; the next
step was an attempt to reduce education to mathematical
units; this attempt failed because it was found that
units, hours, and credits did not and could not measure

5Robert M. Hutchins, The Higher Learning in America,
p. 118* New Haven, Connecticut: Yale Unilversity Press, 1956.
6lbid., p. 70.
7Hutchins, No Friendly Voice, p* 29. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, .IV-U-

8Henry M. Wriston, "The Integrity of the College", School
and Society, XLIII (February, 1936), 192.








47
the student's achievement or present worth; and the our-
rent tendency is toward the evaluation of the individual
student and the use of that evaluation as a basis for
his further education. *..*In almost every college worthy
of the name pome effort is being made to break down mass
education, to furnish individual guidance, to take advan-
tage of the individual students tastes, enthusiasm, and
abilities, to put less emphasis on enforced classroom
exercises and more upon self-propelled activities, and#
in short, to set the student free to educate himself and
test him by his success in doing so*

In practice, these forementloned cleavages in the

philosophy of higher education are generally a matter of de-

gree with the student as well as with the institution. Real-

istically, If student personnel work is to serve the needs of

students, it must find itts role with respect to these opposed

points of view. The needs of the student and the requirements

of the college will in considerable degree determine how the

personnel worker can best serve the student.
Greater knowledge about people through knowledge

gained from the social and biological sciences increases the

effectiveness of personnel work. Colleges and universities

are assuming increased responsibility for the education of

the total individual and personnel workers must be prepared

to do their part in a philosophy which recognises the impor-

tance of the fullest possible development of the student.

The scope of this responsibility has been outlined in the re-

port of the President's Commission on Higher Educations


9R. L# Duffus, Democracy Enters College# pp. 2354-35.
New York: Charles Scribner'Ts Sons, 1936.








48
American colleges and universities must envision a
much larger role for higher education in the national
life, They can no longer consider themselves merely
the instruments for producing an intellectual elite;
they must become the means by which every citizen, youth,
and adult is enabled and encouraged to carry his educa-
tion, formal 18d informal, as far as his native capac-
ities permit,#

The crucial task of higher education today, there-
fore, is to provide a unified general education for
American youth, Colleges must find the right relation-
ship between specialized training on the one hand, aim-
ing at a thousand different careers, and the transmis-
sion of a common cultural heritage toward a common citio
zenship on the other, **oThis purpose calls for a unity
in the program of studies that a uniform system of
courses cannot supply; The unity must come, instead,
from a consistency of aim that will infu e and harmonize
all teaching and all campus activities.1


The Philosophy of Personnel Work

The student personnel movement developed during the

early twentieth century* Stimulated by the scientific find-

ings about individual differences, greater attention was fo-

cused on individualizing mass education. The study of stu-

dents as individuals gave ample evidence that failure in any

aspect of adjustment frequently affected the learner adverse-

ly and, furthermore, that scholastic success in college did

not guarantee success after college* The student personnel

movement constitutes one of the most important efforts of

American educators to individualize education in an era of

10The Report of The President's Commission on High-
Education, Higher Education for American Democracy, Vol. I,
p. 101. New York: Happer and Brothern, 19,
lIbld.o Vol. I, p. 49.








49

mass education. This movement expresses an awareness of the

significance of group life as well as being concerned with

students individually. The optimum development of the indi-

vidual is sought in terms of his well-rounded development -

physically, socially, emotionally, and spiritually, as well

as intellectually*

The Student Personnel Committee of the American
Council on Education have attempted to define the scope and

objectives of student personnel work in the light of research
and clinical findings of modern psychology, sociology, cul-

tural anthropology, and education in the task of aiding stu-

dents to develop fully in the college environment. The fol-

lowing quotation makes clear the all inclusive responsibility

for education envisioned as a goal of higher education:

...Through his college experiences he (the student)
should acquire an appreciation of cultural values, the
ability to adapt to changing social conditions, moti-
vation to seek and to create desirable social changes,
emotional control to direct his activities, moral and
ethical values for himself and for his community, stand-
ards and habits of personal physical well-being, and the
ability to choose a vocation which makes maximum use of
his talents and enables him to make appropriate contri-
butions to his society ***..Such broad gauge development
of the individual should in no sense be considered as a
sufficient and complete goal in itself* It is axiomatic
today that no man lives in a social vacuum. Rather in-
dividual development is conditioned by the kind of soci-
ety in which a person lives, and by the quality of in-
ter-personal and group relationships which operate around
him. He is constantly affecting society; and society is
constantly shaping him. These relationships constitute
the cultural patterns with which higher education must
be concerned in its efforts to stimulate and guide the
development of each of its student. ...Both classroom
and out-of-class activities of the college should be










related to these ends, and students* organizations
should be incorporate in the institutions total
educational program.

Implementation of the Personnel Philosophy

Almost every writer in the field of student person-

nel work has emphasized the acceleration of interest in this

field since 1920. Activity has increased by leaps and bounds#

The number of published articles and books, the reports of

research, and the increase in the number of personnel officers

in colleges and universities are ample evidence of this facts

Clearly, there is a growing active interest in personnel work#

and further evidence of this interest is the need for a wide-

spread knowledge of the elements of a good student personnel

programs

Generally speaking, it may have become too common to

think of all out-of-class activities as a responsibility of

the personnel deans. It would be a mistake to dichotomize

the education of students between that which is learned in the

classroom and that called "extra-curricula." From the point

of view of the personnel philosophy the whole individual is

implicated in every situation and success or failure in one

area of living has an effect on the student which may be car-

ried into other situations.

12"The Student Personnel Point of View," American
Council on Education Studies, (Washington, D.C. T A"er-
ican Council on Education, September, 1949), Vol. XIII, No.
13, pp, 3, 4.










The implementation of the personnel philosophy is
largely determined by the ability of the college staff to

find its Job, to undertake only as much of a program as it
can carry out honestly, to select students who can profit

by its resources, to leave to other agencies everything else.

The parameters within which the personnel program should de-
velop are suggested by Lloyd-Joness

Fundamentally the development of a student person-
nel program in any institution will be determined by;
(1) the objectives and educational program of the in-
stitution; (2) the present and future needs of the
students; (3) the knowledge, skills, judgments, and
vision of the faculty and administrative staff; (4) the
financial resources for personnel services; and (S4 the
physical facilities available in the institution."'

More specifically, it might be asked what are the

present and future needs of the students? Although the ma-

jor responsibility for a student's growth in personal and
social wisdom rests with the student himself, the college

personnel program can condition such growth* The Student

Personnel Committee of the American Council on Education

has listed the conditions which affect the student's growth

in personal and social wisdom

The student achieves orientation to his college en-
vironment. **.The student succeeds in his studies* #..
He finds satisfactory living facilities. **.The stu-
dent achieves a sense of belonging to the college. *...*
The student learns balanced use of his physical capac-
ities* *#*The student progressively understands him-
self* *.**The student understands and uses his emotions

15Lloyd-Jones and Smith, op, cit., p. 36.








52

...The student develops lively and significant interests.
***..The student achieves understanding and control of his
financial resources. ***Th student progresses toward
appropriate vocational goals.* *.*The student develops
individuality and responsibility. **The student discov-
ers ethical and spiritual meaning in life. **.The stu-
dent learns to live with others. ...The student pro-
gresses toward satisfying and socially acceptable sexual
adjustments. **..The student prepares for satisfying,
constructive postcollege activity*

The implementation of the personnel point of view

rests upon these forementioned conditions. Colleges and uni-

versities must decide on the staff and program needed in the

light of the needs of the students and the resources of the

institution.

Empathy and Personnel Work

The personnel program would assume that every stu-

dent takes part in the campus social community.

Campus culture, like the parent cultures from which
it springs, develops and grows, incorporating new pat-
terns and repeating and altering the old. **.Education
in a social context implies a realistic appraisal of the
college as one among many methods of cultural induction
and training. It also implies a systematic use of the
social structure and the group dynamics inherent in the16
college culture for the optimum development of students.10

Most important, however, the personnel worker must

consider the dynamics of the social process which takes place

on the campus. The student is arbitrarily assigned a role by

14"Student Personnel Point of View," op. cit., pp.
6-11.
15Robert L. Sutherland and others, Students and Staff
in a Social Context, pp* 1, 2. American Council on Education
Studies, Washington, D. C.: The American Council on Education,
Vol. XVII, No. 18, 1953.










the other students which is either satisfactory or unsatis-

factory to him. If it is unsatisfactory it may limit his

academic proficiency* If satisfactory, it may spur him on

to greater effectiveness in all phases of his life.

The roles of an individual in his social group are
important to his development as a person because they
represent the valuation of him by others. In a sense,
a society is like the director of a play who assesses
the applicants for roles and then metes out assignments.
...These roles constitute the group's appraisal of the
individual as he functions in the campus society.
Whether these are right or wrong evaluations of him as
a person, whether they meet with his approval or dis-
approval is irrelevant at the moment; the fact is that
in terms of its standards and values the campus society
grants status, a place in the hierarchy, to each mem-
ber of the groups.6

The role which each student has, is in part, the

result of the empathic process. The student is what the

others see him as. However, this role may be the result of

false values and false evaluations. The personnel philosophy

suggests that ideals and values, with wider application than

the campus culture, should be instilled in students.

The campus society should provide democratic, adult
roles. As we have seen, the roles that an individual
plays in campus life have tremendous importance in his
self-evaluation and hence in his development toward
emotional maturity and standards of adult behavior. Con-
sequently, to the extent that they are able, students
should be given roles to play in a campus life which are
consonant with the roles they will be expected to play
as citizens 17

16
Paul J. Brouwer, Student Personnel Services in
General Education, pp. 302, 505. Washington, D.C.: American
Council on Education, 1949.
17Ibid., pp. 507, 308.








54

The personnel program then, should be concerned with

the potentiality of the empathic process for no citizen can

be worthy of the name unless he can understand and evaluate

his fellow-men. No matter in what ivory tower of academic

isolation a learned scientist or artist may sit, no man ex-

ists in a social vacuum. On the other hand, most college

students will eventually become community members and work

where they must deal with people, their ability to understand
and be understood by these people is absolutely necessary.

The failure of the universities to develop social skill is

criticized by Mayo:

The social skills students develop at universities,
in athletics or clubs or other activities, are not
closely related to their studies. The two are more of-
ten considered as in opposition; the one to be achieved
at the expense of the other. Consequently, the develop-
ment of a students social skills may be restricted to
association with fellow students in activities at least
by Implication frowned upon by many university author-
ities. This social restriction may prevent the develop-
ment of whole-hearted participation with others in the
general educational aims of the institution. Associa-
tion of student and student without full participation
in the broad purposes of the university develops a low*
er order of social skill than that which the apprentice
learns at his trade. ...This artificial and narrow ex-
perience has limited use in later life, for maturity
demands a highly deeloped, and continuously develop-
ing, social skill.a

The empathic mechanism is basic to these social

skills* If the person understands others he is empathic and

may see ways to make himself better liked and appreciated

18Mayo, op. cit., pp. 21, 22.










by them. If he sees their strength, he can encourage it*

He knows where to help his fellow students and hence his role

becomes favorable from the point of view of his colleagues.

If a student is to be successful in all the various

phases of his campus life and assume a satisfactory role in

society, he must also be successful in his academic work#

For the student this involves understanding of the subject

matter as well as understanding of the teachers The teacher

is the interpreter of the subject matter learned in the class-

room and indirectly most of that learned outside the class-

room, the two can scarcely be separated. The subject must

then understand his teacher# Frequently, students fail to

understand the personality of the teacher, and as a conse-

quence, fail to understand what phases of the subject matter
are important to the teacher and hence lose the important

points in the course, This mechanism works both ways* The

teacher who fails to understand the way the minds of his stu-

dents perceive, is probably a very poor teacher, This is es-

pecially true in the case of mediocre students who need spe-

cial help but who may, with an empathic teacher, learn the

material as well as the brighter students.

Empathy, then, it would appear is a mechanism which

helps the main aims and purposes of a personnel program in

bringing about the optimum development of the individual.

The ability to empathize is a valuable aid in the








66

hand of .clinician or teacher as well as student or citizen.
If it is the aim of personnel work to produce a happy# sue"

cessful student, the whole interaction process of student

and student, teacher and student, and the student, staff,

teacher, and outsider interaction can be made more success,

ful by furthering the study of the empathic process. Ina.-

much as this social interaction is the prime interest of per-

sonnel workers, empathy, as the basic mechanism in this inter-

action should be a field for greater interest and study by

personnel workers,

A helpful analogy may be made between the search for

the cause of disease in thefield of medicine and the search

for the cause of social unhappiness, a goal of personnel work-

ers. Medicine has been concerned with overall, generalized,

unfocused prevention more fresh air, more sunshine# more

oranges, or with the. treatment of the individual case# such

as direct aches or pains. This is also true in personnel

work. Personnel programs provide guided experience in group

living, social and physical recreation, and opportunity for

individual development,-- overall prevention of social unhap-

piness. Clinical services help in the solution of individual

problems. This work is often excellent and does a great deal

of good. However# just as the research biologists end bacte-

riologists look for the basic causes of disease so the re-

searcher in personnel work must find cause in the basic mech-

anisms of social interaction. Empathy, as one of these basic








57

mechanisms, may be related to the learning and development

of the college student.

Summary

Studies then, which consider factors in the success

of the individual student are those which contribute most to

personnel work. The individual is a social as well as an in-

tellectual being, social skills should be developed in the

student. Empathy is perhaps more basic than a social skill.

Its intellectual use as well as its social use are not yet

determined. Nonetheless it appears that few people either

learn or do their daily work without trying in some way,
large or small, to understand their fellow-man, who is el-

ther the object or interpreter of something. Empathy appears

to be the ability which aids this understanding. Therefore,

empathic ability as a factor to aid the understanding which

brings about personal success is of interest to personnel

workers*
















CHAPTER V


EMPATHY AND SCHOLASTIC SUCCESS

According to social philosophy, empathy is describ-

ed as a basic mechanism in social adjustment. Furthermore#

it has been hypothesized that learning itself is facilitated
j
by the empathic process. The successful adjustment of col-

lege students, in addition to other factors, involves satis-

factory academic achievement. Therefore, the study proposes

to determine whether empathy is a factor in scholastic sue-

cess.


The Rationale of the Study

Using the definition of empathy proposed by Dymond,

"the imaginative transposing of oneself into the thinking,

feeling, and acting of another and so structuring the world

as he does," the study will measure the ability of a student

to predict the feelings and attitudes of another. A numeri-

cal index of this ability will be compared with the subject's

grade point standing, as a measure of scholastic success. In

view of the highly significant relationship between intelli-

gence and grade point standing, found by other Investigators,

1Super, op, cit., p. 118.








59

the independence of empathy as a factor in scholastic success

will be determined by holding intelligence constant.

If a significant relationship is found between em-

pathy and scholastic success, when intelligence is maintained

constant, it may be concluded that the null hypothesis is

disproved and can be rejected.


The Test of Empathy2

The test consists of forty-two statements dealing

with a persons attitudes and feelings towards various com-

mon situations. The following are a few examples of state-

ments from the tests

a. I am wary about the trustworthiness of persons

whom I do not know well.

b. I feel embarrassed even when I make trivial

errors*

c. When I do something selfish, I worry about it

afterwards.

The respondents are offered four alternatives to

express their attitudes and feelings 1, almost always; 2,

often; 3, seldom; and 4, almost never* The test requires

at least two associates, each person responds to the test

items and then each predicts the responses of his associate.

This instrument selected to measure empathic ability

2See Appendix A and B*








60

uses a technique suggested by Dymond, that of measuring the
disparity between a subject's predictions of the responses
of an associate and the responses which an associate actually
makes.5 The total deviation is assumed to be a measure of
empathic ability the smaller the deviation, the better

the empathy score. A refined empathy score will be obtained
by using this test by Bender and Hastorf4 and their method of
correcting for the effects of projection. In essence, a re-

fined empathy score is derived by comparing the raw empathy
score (the sum of the deviations of a subject's predictions

from the responses of his associate) with the projection
score (the sum of the deviations of the subject's predictions
from his own responses), For example if a raw empathy devi-

ation score was thirty-nine, and the projection deviation

score was thirty-six, the subjects predictions then deviated

less from his own responses than from the responses of his
associate. By subtracting the raw empathy score from the pro-

jection score, the subject would have a refined empathy score
of minus three. If, on the other hand, the raw empathy devi-

ation was less than the projection deviation, the subject

would have a positive refined empathy score*

3Rosalind P. Dymond, "A Scale for the Measurement of
Empathic Ability," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XIII
(April, 1949), 1274-3,
4I. E. Bender, and A. H. Hastorf, "On Measuring Gen-
erlized Empathic Ability," Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, XLVIII (October, 1953),v 63-06.










In an experiment to determine the consistency of

scores derived from the use of this teat, Bender and Hastorf5

concluded the refined empathy measure is consistent enough

to be used as an operational measure of empathic ability.

Scoring of the Test

The tests were hand-scored by the experimenter# An

analysis sheet was used to tally and compute the empathy

score of each subject. The number of each question was writ*-

ten in sequence from top to bottom on the left side of the

sheet. Four vertical columns across the top of the sheet

were headed response, prediction# raw empathy deviation score,

and projection deviation score. In scoring, the coded response

1, 2, 3, or 4 which had been circled by the subject was placed
opposite the appropriate question number in the column marked,

response. The coded prediction 1, 2, 3, or 4 which had been

circled by the subject was placed opposite the appropriate

question in the column marked, prediction. The raw empathy
deviation score for each question was computed by comparing

the subject's prediction, with his associates response. For
example, if the response circled by the associate was three

and the prediction by the subject was two, the raw empathy

deviation would be one. This deviation score was then enter-

ed in the column headed raw empathy deviation. The fourth

5Ibid., p. 505.








62
column entry, projection deviation score was determined by

comparing the subjects response with his own prediction.

Thus, if his response to the question was two and his pre-

diction of his associates response was four, the projection

deviation score would be two. A refined empathy score was

derived by subtracting the sum of the raw empathy deviation

scores from the sum of the projection deviation scores.

Thus, if the raw empathy score is larger than the projection

score, the subject has predicted closer to his own responses

than those of his associate and the refined empathy score

will have a negative value, On the other hand, if the pro-

jection score is larger than the raw empathy score, this means

the subject's predictions are closer to the response of his
associate than his own and the refined empathy score will have

a positive value.


The Selection of Subjects

and Administration

of the Test

The subjects selected for the study were fifty-five
male college freshmen who had entered the University of Flor-

ida in September, 1953. All of the subjects were tested dur-

ing the month of March, 1954 and had completed one semester

of the freshman year.

The experimenter visited the residence hall counselor

and obtained a letter of introduction to the student










counselors in charge of sections of the freshmen residence
halls. Prom thirteen sections, six were selected at random

to take part in the experiment. The student counselors

in these sections were contacted individually and arrange-

ments made to give the test of empathy at the next hall meet-

ing of the residents.
At this meeting, the student counselor introduced

the experimenter to his students. The cooperation of the
group was stimulated by explaining the pioneering aspects of

this social research which would provide greater knowledge
about the mechanism of understanding other people.

The test# which required approximately twenty minutes
for administrations was then given to the students. The sub-
jects were instructed to imagine themselves as another person

in the group and to answer the questions as this person would
answer them. The following instructions were givens

Is Write your name on the first line.

2. Write the name of your associate on the second

line -. the person whose response you will predict.

3. Please read through these instructions with me
-- we are asking that you respond to this test in a special

way* You are to predict how your associate would answer

these statements. It is imperative that you do not answer

these statements with your opinion of the person# but rather

as think he would answer them himself. Please use the









64

following scale. OCircle the number you think he would circle:
(1) Almost always (2) often (3) seldom (4) almost never.

When the subjects had finished this section of the

test, an identical test was given them with the instruction#

"Please answer these same questions by circling the number

that indicates your feeling or opinion about each of these

situations."

Sources of the Data
Approximately two-hundred students took the test of

empathy and returned one-hundred and eighty satisfactorily

completed tests. Thirty-seven of this number were upper class-

men or freshmen beginning their first semester. The academic

records of the remaining one-hundred and forty-three subjects

were inspected at the office of the university registrar. In

an attempt to select a learning situation most nearly uniform,

the general education courses of the University College were

selected because of their use of standard study materials ani

examinations* Fifty-five students who had had a common core

of three general education courses were selected as subjects

for the study*

The following description of these courses is quot-

ed from the University of Florida Catalog:

C-I, American Institutions Designed to develop
and stimulate the ability to interpret the interrelated
problems confronting American institutions, The une-
qual rates of change in technology, in economic life,
in government, in family life, in education, and in










religion are analyzed and interpreted to show the need
for a more effective coordination of the factors of our
evolving social organization of today# Careful sozrutiny
is made of the changing functions of our institutions
as joint interdependent activities so that a conolous-
ness of the significant relationships between the indi-
vidual and social institutions may be developed, from
which conclousness a greater degree of social adjustment
may be achieved.
C-3, Reading, Speaking, and Writing Freshman
English A comprehensive English course designed to
enlarge the student#* store of ideas and meanings and
to increase his efficiency in the communication arts -
reading, writing, speaking, and listening. The course
provides regular practice in oral and silent reading,
n thought analysis, in improving the form and style
of written and oral expression, in extending the vocab-
ulary, and in making effective use of the body and voice
in speaking. Students are encouraged to read widely as
a means of broadening their interests and increasing
their ability to communicate effectively.

C-41, Practical Logic -- The principal aims are (1)
to develop ability to think with greater accuracy and
thoroughness and (2) to develop ability to evaluate the
thinking of others, The material used applies to actual
living and working conditions. The case method is used 6
to insure practice, and numerous exercises are assigned.

The A.C.E. (I) scores of the fifty-five subjects

were obtained from the office of Student Personnel Records.

All of the subjects had taken the 1955 Revision of the AmeriO

can Council on Education Psychological Examination in Septem-

ber, 1953.




6The University Record of the University of Florida,
19585 54, pp. 275, 276. University of Florida Bulletin,
Vol. XLVIII, No. 4. Galnesville, Florida: University of
Florida, April, 1953.










Analysis and Interpretation of the Data

The data used in the study are presented in Table I*

Opposite the numbered subjects on the left side of the table
and in the column marked I are the scores from the A.C.E. (L

or verbal section) test. In the next column, II, are the

scores earned by the subjects on the Empathy Test. The final

column, III# are the grade point averages achieved by the sub-

jects, in three common courses, during the first semester.

Inasmuch as the study attempts to relate empathy to

.scholastic success, Table 2 is presented with scores on the

Empathy Test in descending rank order. Inspection of this

table reveals that those subjects with scores in the upper

half of the range of empathy scores have, in general, higher

grade point averages than those in the lower half of the

range. In Table 5, the subjects have been placed in rank

order by grade point averages, Once again may be noted, the

preponderance of high or positive Empathy Test scores asso-

ciated with high grade averages.

In Table 4* the A.C.Eo (L) scores have been placed

in descending order* Preliminary inspection of this table

does not appear to reveal a noticeable relationship between

the Empathy Test scores and AoC.E. (L) scores. Tentatively#

it may be concluded that the high empathy scores are related

to high grade point average or scholastic success. On the

other hand, from an inspection of Table 4, it would appear










TABLE 1

A.C.E. (L) SCORES, EMPATHY TEST SCORES, AND GRADE
POINT AVERAGES OF FIFTY-FIVE COLLEGE FRESHMEN

Subject Ia II 1110 Subject Ia II III0


65
60
74
69
82
42
76
81
71
68
66
80
70
95
39
58
67
54
41
72
113
52
69
82
48
46
68


-5
-8
8
-10
4
6
4
-16
-15
1*5
5
-32
-6
5
6
-15



8
23
-6
-5
1
-5
-17
6
'-3
-2
-3


1*73
1.73
1,75
3.27
1.00
3.64
2.36
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.09
2*64
1.64
2.00
3.*64
0.36
1.36
2.27
1.73
1.00
1,64
5.00
0v36
1.00
4.00
0.73
2.00
2.91


51
69
61
48
45
57
59
56
60
63
59
65
73
82
45
100
51
68
65
45
46
41
70
46
82
44
49
66


-12
12
10
-2
-15
0
-24
6
-6
-16
-18
-3
-4
-6
1
8
2
3
10
5
-5
-2
-2
5
15
-15
-25
-7


1.00
2.27
1.91
1.64
0.91
0.55
1.73
1.*36
1.00
1.27
1.36
1.00
0.73
2.00
0.64
4.00
0.27
2.75
2.64
2.55
0.73
2.00
2.64
2.00
2.55
2.00
2.00
2.00


aRaw score (L or verbal section)
Psychological Examination

b'Empathy Teat Score


American Council


eGrade Point Average










TABLE 2

SUBJECT IN RANK ORDER BY EMPATHY SCORE


Subject I& lib IIIc Subject Ia I1b III0


54
82
69
61
65
74
100
86
82
67
39
42
66
76
82
95
45
46
68
51
43
113
57
46
48
70
41


1,73
2.55
2,27
1.91
2,64
3.27
4.00
1.36
4,00
2.27
0,36
2.36
2.64
2.00
3.64
3.64
2.55
2.00
2.73
0.27
0.64
3.00
0.55
2.00
1.64
2.64
2.00


-3
-3
-3
-3
-4
-5
-5
-5
-8
-6
-6
-6
-6
-7
-8
-10
-12
-13
-13
-15
-15
-16
-16
-17
-18
-24
-25
-32


0*73
2.91
1.00
0,73
0.473
1.75
1.,73
1.64
0.356
2.00
1.00
1.00
2,00
2.00
1.73
1,00
1.00
0.91
1.36
2.00
2.00
1.27
2.00
1.00
1.36
1.73
2.00
1.64


aRaw score (L or verbal section)
on Education Psychological Examination

bEmpathy Test Score


American Council


CGrade Point Average










TABLE 3

SUBJECTS IN RANK ORDER BY GRADE POINT AVERAGE


Subject 10 IIIb 11 Subjeoct I& IIb III0


82
100
95
82
74
113
68
68
70
66
65
82
45
42
69
67
82
76
71
70
66
51
49
46
46
44
41


6
8
3
4
8


3
-2
5
10
15
3
6
18
12
6
08

4
*15
-6
,,7
-16
-25
3
-2
-15
-2


4.00
4.00
3.64
3.64
3.27
3.00
2.91
2.73
2.64
2.64
2.64
2.56
2*55
2.55
2.36
2.27
2.27
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2,00
2.00


10
.5
-8
-24
23
-5
-2
-32
-18
-13
18
6
-16
-8
-10
-17
-3
-6
-12
-6
-*12
-.13
-4
-3

1
0
-5
6
8


1.91
1.73
1.73

1.73
1.64
1.64
1.64
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.27
1.09
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.64
0 *55
0.56
0.36

0.27


aRaw score (L or verbal section) American Council
on Education Psoychological Examination

bEmpathy Test Score


Grade Point Average










TABLE 4

SUBJECTS IN RANK ORDER BY A. C. E6 (L) SCORE


Subjects I iIb IIIc0 Subjects I1 Ib III0


113
100
95
82
82
82
e2
80
76
74
73
72
71
70
70
69
69
69
68
68
68
67
66
66
65
65
63


1
8
3
15
6
4
-8
-32
4
8
-4
-6
0.15
-6
-2
is
12
-10
-17
-5
-3
3
6
-7
5
10
-5
-3


3.00
4.00
3,64
2055
4.00
3.64
2.00
1.64
2.00
3,27
0,73
1.64
2.00
2.00
2.64
2.27
1.00
1,00
1,09
2,*91
2.73
2,27
2,00
2.64
2.64
1,73
1.00


-16
10
-6
-8
-24
-18
tol
-*13
0
6
23
-5
-16
-.12
2
-26
-3
*2
3
M2
*a

-15
-13
1
6
-2
-6
6


1.27
1.91
1.00
1.73
1,73

1.36
0.65
1.36
1.73
0.36
2.00
1.00
0.27
2.00
0.73
1.64
2.00
2.00
0,73
2.55
2.00
0.91
0464
2.36
2,00
1,00
0936


aRaw score (L or


verbal section) American Council


on Education Psychological Examination
bEmpathy Test Score


CGrade Point Average








71
that the A.C.E. (L) scores and empathy scores may not corre-

late significantly*

It would appear a logical step to make a statistical
test of the relationship between the variables. Accordingly,

the data were analyzed to determine their linear correlation.

Initially, the relationship between empathy and in-

telligence was tested. In Table 5, Calculation of the Coef-

ficient of Correlation between Empathy Test Scores and A*Co.E

(L) Scores, the data yielded a linear correlation of 16.

Using the tables in Garrett,7 "Correlation Coefficients at

the 5 per cent and 1 per cent Levels of Significance," the

significance of the correlation coefficients at the 5 per

cent and 1 per cent levels are, by linear interpolation#

respectively .266 and ,5456 It is clear that the obtained

i of 016, since it is smaller than .266 is not significant

at the 5 per cent level and therefore, that empathy and in-

telligence are not statistically related.

In Table 8, Calculation of the Coefficient of Cor-
relation between Empathy Test Scores and Grade Point Averages,

a linear correlation of .37 was obtained. In Garrett,8 the
significance of the correlation coefficients at the 6 per

cent and 1 per cent levels were respectively, ,266 and .345.

Henry E. Garrett, Statistics in Psychology and
Education, p. 299. New York: Longmans, Oreen and Company,
19498


8IbId., p, 299.










TABLE 8

CALCULATION OF THM COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION BETWEEN
EMPATHY TEST SCORES AND A.C.E. (L) SCORES

Empathy Toeat Scores ACOE. (L) Soorea

Class-Intervals Frequenoy Class-Intervalm Frequency
20 to 23 1 109 to 113 1
16to19 0 104 to 108 0
12 to 15 2 99 to 103 1
8 to 11 4 94 to 98 1
4 to 7 8 89 to 93 0
0 to 3 8 84 to 88 0
.4 to -7' 9 79 to 83 6
-8 to -5 10 74 to 78 2
-12 to *9 a 69 to 73 8
-16 to -*13 68 64 to 68 8
-20 to -17 2 69 to 63 7
-24 to -21 1 54 to 58 4
-28 to -25 1 49 to 63 5
-52 to -29 1 44 to 48 7
39 to 43 6
M _-y%'- = S,


Obtained values


3Y = -o*71

Cx -,16
y&


-IX 0 Cx
x ____r


y = 3.10

x = 2.55


?XIYI = 73


73" (- )(-.


= .16


3.10 x 2.56


&y ex










TABLE 8

CALCULATION OF TIHE COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION BETWEEN
EMPATHY TEST SCORES AND GRADE POINT AVERAGES


Empathy Test Soores Grade Point Averages

Class-Intervala Frequency Class-Intervals Frequency

20 to 23 1 53.76 to 4.00 2
16 to 19 0 3551 to S375 2
12 to 15 2 3.26 to 3.50 1
8 to 11 4 3.01 to 3.25 0
4 to 7 8 2,76 to 3.00 2
0 to 3 8 2.51 to 2,75 6
-4 to -1 9 2.26 to 2.50 3
-8 to -5 10 2.01 to 2.25 0
-12 to -9 2 1,76 to 2.00 12
-16 to -13 6 1.51 to 1.78 7
.20 to -17 2 1.26 to 1.50 4
-24 to -21 1 1.01 to 1,25 I
-28 to -25 1 0.76 to 1.00 7
-32 to -29 1 0.51 to 0.78 5
0.26 to 0.50 3
=:Bx 3,,.


Obtained values t

Cy
Cy = "+'aS


Cx -1358

rX'Y' =


X'Y, c- C x
ExYo C
Iy


dyz


2.54

3.65


198


198 -


2.54 x 3.65


(-.15) (-1.36)


- .37


c Oax










It may be stated then that the obtained r of .*37, since it

in larger than .345, is significant at the 1 per cent level

of significance. Therefore, it may be concluded that a

significant and positive relationship does exist between

empathy and scholastic success.

The relationship between intelligence and grade

point average, Table 7, gave the expected highly signifi-

cant and positive correlation of .62. Although empathy and

intelligence have been shown to be related to scholastic suc-

cess, a question now arises concerning the influence of em-

pathy as an independent factor, from intelligence, in scholas-

tic success*
In order to test the relationship of empathy to scho-

lastic success, when intelligence is maintained constant, the

method of multiple and partial correlation was selected. Ini-

tially, the Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (S.D.) of the

three variables, were computed. See Table 8, Calculation of

the Mean and S.D. of Empathy Scores; Table 9, Calculation of

the Mean and SD. of Grade Point Averages; and Table 10, Cal-

culation of the Mean and S.D. of A*C*E. (L) Scores*

In Table 11 A, having found the intercorrelations of

the three variables, the net correlation may then be calcu-

lated between (1) grade point average and (2) intelligence

with the influence of (3) empathy partialled out or held con-

stant. This net or partial coefficient of correlation, is

*61. This means that if all of the students had the same










TABLE 7

CALCULATION OF THE COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION BETWEEN
A, C. B. (L) SCORES AND GRADE POINT AVERAGES


ACEB, (L) Scores


Grade Point Averages


Class-Intervals Frequency


109
104
99
94
89
84
79
74
69
64
59
54
49
44
39


to 113
to 108
to 103
to 98
to 93
to 88
to 83
to 78
to 73
to 68
to 63
to 58
to 53
to 48
to 45


1
0
1

0
0
5
2
8
8
7
4
5
7
6


Clams-Intervals


3,76 to
3,51 to
3.26 to
3.01 to
2.76 to
2.51 to
2.26 to
2.01 to
1.76 to
1.51 to
1.26 to
1.01 to
0.76 to
0.51 to
0.26 to


4.00
3.75
3.50
3.25
5.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1,75
1.50
1.25
1,00
0.75
0.50


Frequency


2
2
1
0
2
6
5
0
12
7
4
1
7
5


Obtained values:


C .38

C = *71


ay = 3.64

-y 3*.10
xA


IX'Y0 = 387


387
g"r


iXoY' -C C
r T y x
Oy Y'x


- .38 x .71


-- 35.64 x 3.10


= .62









TABLE 8
CALCULATION OP THE MEAN AID S.D. OF EMPATHY SCORES

Class-Intervals
Scores Mid-Point f X' fX fX2

20 to 23 21.5 1 6 6 36
16 to 19 17.5 0 5 0 0
12 to 15 13.5 2 4 8 32
8 to 11 9.5 4 3 12 36
4 to 7 5.5 8 2 16
0 to 3 1.5 8 1 8 8
*4 to -1 -2.5 9 0 0
-8 to -5 -6.5 10 -1 -10 10
-12 to -9 -10.5 2 -2 -4 8
-16 to -13 -14.5 6 -3 -18 54
-20 to -17 -18.5 2 -4 -8 32
-24 to -21 -21.5 1 -5 -5 25
-28 to -25 -26.5 1 -6 -6 56
-32 to -29 -50,5 1 -7 -7 49
Nz'5T moo~ "558


AM -2.50
ci .58
M -.508


OrJ = X"c2 x i =


f -8 *145
0 = 5--'"


1 i4

ci = 4 x -*.145 -.58

58 (-.145)2 x 4 = 10.2










TABLE 9


CALCULATION OF THE
OF GRADE POINT


MFAN AND S.D,
AVERAGES


Class-Intervals
Scores Mid-Point f X ftX fDX

$3.76 to 4.00 5.885 2 8 16 128
3.51 to 5.75 5.635 2 7 14 98
3.26 to 3.50 3.385 1 6 6 8
3.01 to 3.25 3.155 0 8 0 0
2.76 to 3.00 2.885 2 4 8 32
2.51 to 2.76 2.655 6 3 18 54
2,26 to 2.50 2.505 35 2 6 12
2.01 to 2.25 2.135 0 1 -8 0
1.76 to 2.00 1.885 12 0 0 0
1.51 to 1.*75 1.635 7 .01 #7 7
1.26 to 1.50 1.3505 4 -2 -8 16
1.01 to 1.25 1.15 1 -5 -3 9
0,76 to 1.00 0.805 7 .4 -28 112
0.51 to 0.75 0.635 5 45 -25 125
0.26 to 0.51 03,585 5 -6 -18 108
N ,.I "W"1 7'7


AM = 1.885
cl -0.095
M = 1. 7m


C ofX0

i = .250


- -21 -.381
177T


ci = .250 x -.381 =.-,095


x i,/.5 (-.381) x .250 = 0.91


: 2 j..- 2










TABLE 10

CALCULATION OF THE MEAN AND S.D.
OF A.C*E. (L) SCORES


Class-Interval 2
Scores Mid-Point f X X fX2

109 to 113 111 1 9 9 81
104 to 108 106 0 8 0 0
99 to 105 101 1 7 7 49
94 to 98 96 1 6 6 36
89 to 93 91 0 5 0 0
84 to 88 86 0 4 0 0
79 to 83 81 5 8 18 46
74 to 78 76 2 2 4 8
69 to 73 71 8 1 8 8
64 to 69 66 8 0 0
59 to 635 61 7 -1 -7 7
54 to 58 56 4 -2 -8 16
49 to 55 51 6 -3 -15 45
44 to 48 46 7 -4 -28 112
39 to 45 41 6 -5 -30 150
Nl 85 i 37


- --


Al = 66.00
ci = -3.55
M = 6S245


- -39 -709
- g


i = 5


ci =5 x .,,709 = -3.55

-'fX2 .02 X = 557- (-,709)2 x 5 15.50
N 119










TABLE 11
CALCULATION OP PARTIAL COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION


1 (L) S(3)ore Empathy Tet Soore
Grade Point Average A.c.E. (L Scores Empathy Test Scores


M = 1.79
='1 0.91

r12 = 62


M2 = 62.45
(2 =15.50


r13


= .37


M a -3.,08

C = 10.O20


r23


.16


A
Partial Correlation, Grade Point Average and A.C.E. (L)
Scores, Empathy Test Scores Maintained Constant


r12 r3r23
Y18 r'13 4 '23


#62 *37 x .16


. 61


/1 (.37) I/ (.16)2


B
Partial Correlation, Grade Point Average and Empathy
Test Scores, A*C.F. (L) Scores Maintained Constant


r13 5 r 12*23


r12


.37 .62 x .16


1I1 (.62)1 |h. (.16)2


C
Partial Correlation, A.C.E. (L) Scores and Empathy Test
Scores, Grade Point Average Maintained Constant


.16 .62 # .37
S=4-.10
1 (.62)2 (37)2


= .35


r23 r,2rl3


03-T~


r1- 2


r23 3










amount of empathy, the coefficient of correlation between

grade point average and intelligence would have been .61 in-
stead of .62. In other words, if all the students have the
same empathic ability# intelligence and grades still have
about the same correlation. This would indicate that empathy

does not complement intelligence.

From Garrett,9 "Coefficients of Correlation Signifi-
cant at the S per cent Level and at the 1 per cent Level for

Varying Degrees of Freedom," it is found by Interpolation
that entering the table with N m degrees of freedom, in

which m equals the number of variables, the levels of signi-
ficance at the 5 per cent and 1 per cent levels are respec-

tively, .269 and .548. It may therefore be concluded that

the partial coefficient *61 between intelligence and grades,
is significant at the 1 per cent level.

The partial coefficient of correlation between (1)
grade point average and (5) empathy with (2) intelligence
partialled out, or its influence held constant, Table 11 B,

gave a partial coefficient of correlation of *35 as against

an obtained coefficient (r13) of *37. This means if all the

students had the same intelligence, the correlation of em-
pathic ability and grades would still show a significant cor-

relation. This would indicate substantially that empathic
ability is related to scholastic success and the ability

9Ibld_. pp. 426-28.










measured is different than intelligence.

The last partial coefficient of correlation, Table
11 C, gave a net correlation between (2) intelligence and

(5) empathy when the influence of (1) grade point average is

held constant, of -*10. This correlation is not significant.

Theoretically, if the students all received the same grades,

the correlation of intelligence and empathy would be lower

than the obtained correlation, (.16). This would indicate

clearly that intelligence and empathy, as measured in the

study, are different abilities.

In Table 12, a multiple coefficient of correlation

has been calculated from beta coefficients. This coefficient

of multiple determination (R2) means that 45.57 per cent of

the variance in freshman grades is accounted for by whatever

is measured by the A.C.E. (L) test and Empathy Test taken

together, eliminating from double consideration things that
they have in common*

Since the coefficients of multiple determination,

or R2, is composed of two components .5542000 and ,101470, and

since each component pertains only to one of the independent

variables, it is possible to show the influence of each varlo

able to the total predicted variance of grades. This being

the case, the first term, 1354200, indicates the contribution

to scholastic success of intelligence, and the second term,

*101470, indicates the contribution of empathy. Rounded in
terms of percentages, these are 35o4 and 10.I respectively*










It may now be stated that, ability in the A.C.,E (L) test

with what it has in common with empathy held constant, contri-
butes about 35 pep cent to scholastic success and that em-
pathy, apart from that portion related to A.C.E. (L) test

ability, contributes about 10 per cent.

TABLE 12

CALCULATION OF MULTIPLE COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION
OF A.C.E. (L) SCORE AND EMPATHY
TEST SCORE, WITH GRADE
POINT AVERAGE


r12 13r23 *62 *37 x 916
IZ.3 = ---------------. = ..75
1 =Zg I (,16)2


2IS 123 037 .82 x .167
_.=---------...... --------- .278
I -91 (.16)2
22

1. 23 r2.3 + +_-B/3.,rl,

S(.575) (.616) + (.*278) (.365)

R2 = 354200 + .101470

R2 = 4557

H = .68

It may now be stated that, ability in the A.CE. (L)
test with what it has in common with empathy held constant,
contributes about 35 per cent to scholastic success and that








85

empathy, apart from that portion related to A.C.E. (IL) teat

ability, contributes about 10 per cent.

In conclusion, it might then be stated, that empathy

appears to be an ability unrelated to intelligence, which aids

in achieving scholastic success. The students who have this

ability may, to some extent, use it as a substitute for in-

telligence or to facilitate the operation of Intelligence.

It appears definitely, in most oases, to affect the grade

point standing.

Summary

The data of the study have shown that empathy, as

well as intelligence is significantly related to scholastic

success. Furthermore, when intelligence is partialled out

or held constant, empathy is clearly shown to be a different

ability. Therefore, it may be concluded, that the null hy-

pothesis, of the study, may be rejected (at the 1 per cent

level of confidence)* A more precise statement of the hy-

pothesis would be that empathy and intelligence, as meas-

ured in this study, are different abilities and each contrib-

utes significantly to scholastic success.
















CHAPTER VI


SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS


Summary

Philosophical summary -- In this study, empathy has
*
been shown to be a basic mechanism in social interaction.

Empathy, one might say, is the ability to understand the minds

and feelings of other people. The study suggests that empathy

is a social-focused ability of the personality and its use-

fulness has been recognized as far back as the beginning of

human history* As civilization becomes more complex, the

areas of communication being of world wide expansion, the

necessity to understand people in far flung corners of the

globe is more necessary than ever before,/ The cultivation
/
of this ability to empathize enables the diplomat, business-

man# or newswriter to see the world more clearly from the oth-

er persons point of view., Empathy, then, is vital in the ed-

ucative as well as the socialization process.

Empathy may be described as a psychological mechanism,

of the imaginative type# that is closely allied with such

psychological concepts as sympathy, insight, identification,

and projection. It appears as a socialization factor which

84








85
brings about the reaction of the personality to other beings.

S The advantages of being a "good" empathiser or of

using this ability are potentially beneficial to the individ-

ual and society. Not only is it a mechanism of social adjust-

ment but it enables one to gain self-confidence* assume lead-

ership and allay psychological anxieties and tensions.* Under-

standing of others can reduce conflict and improve cooperation

in a social group. The results of the satisfactory inter-

action of people is one of the most beneficial phases of.human

relationships. To understand and be mutually consented in

opinion can bring about benefits to the individual and his

society#

Empathy may also be seen as operative in the educa-

tive process. The data of this experiment have shown that

empathy contributes to scholastic success and for this reason,

its workability should be cultivated and aided by teachers,

personnel workers, and all others whose aim is the education

of college students. In addition, it should be emphasized

in all phases of education for its broader social potential-

ities to individuals and society, as well as its importance

to academic achievement.

From this study, it might also be concluded that

empathy is a democratic ability. Empathy, similar to other

abilities, may be developed as a distinct attribute of the

individual. It is not the same ability as intelligence and








86

therefore in many cases it may be the means by which a rela-

tively intellectually dull but creative and understanding

student, can achieve satisfactory academic success in col-

lege.

If it is the aim of this country to educate masses

of students who are heterogenous and who possess widely dif-

ferent abilities, the development of the workability of em-

pathy may increase the number who will be successful in col*

legse* Drop-outs might be decreased. A program wlich brings

to consciousness the practice of empathic ability might bring

about greater mutual understanding between teacher and stu-

dent and hence, more effective communication and learning.

Intellectual snobbishness would be discouraged and a much

more healthy atmosphere found in many classrooms*

Historical summary -- The experimental study of em-

pathy as a psychological mechanism has only taken place in

the past three decades. Studies which sought to describe the
"good" judge of personality appear to have been pioneering

pathways to experimental studies of empathy. Earlier pay-

chologists such as Lipps, Mead, Allport and Dewey clearly

illustrated the empathic mechanism philosophically and empha-

sized its importance in human reaction. Contemporary psy-

chologists, conducting experimental and clinical studies,

such as Dymond, at the University of Chicago, Bender and

Hastorf, at Dartmouth College, and Remmers, at Purdue










University, have contributed important data for isolating

the psychological mechanism of empathy* In addition, studies
are now in progress at Cornell University, the University of

Illinois, and Yale University, among otherse1

It was the purpose of this writer to use Bender and
Hastorffs instrument for measuring empathy to determine ex-

perimentally the relationship of empathic ability to scholas-

tic success and to present philosophically the case for its

further study and understanding by personnel workers.

Empathy and scholastic success An experiment was

conducted to determine the relationship of empathy to scho-

lastic success when intelligence is held constant. The ex-

periment involved the prediction of the reaction of associ-
ates to proposed questions as given on a test. Each subject

gave his own reaction to a proposed situation and predicted

his associate's reactions to the same situation. The test
score was assumed to be a numerical index of empathic ability*

The academic achievement of all the subjects were

compared in three courses common to the experimental group

and a measure of intelligence was obtained from scores on

the (L or verbal section) of the American Council on Educa-

tion Psychological Examination.

oLetter from Henry Chaunoey, President, Fducational
Testing Service, Princetong Hew Jersey, March 4, 1954.








L38

The results were grouped in rank order for each var.

able; empathy, intelligence# and grade point average. In-

spection of this data revealed that the high empathy scores

were related to high grade point average or scholastic suc-

cesso
A statistical test was then made to determine the

relationship between the variables. The following correla-

tions were obtained:

I1 Correlation of empathy and intelligence was

.16 (not significant).

2. Correlation of intelligence and grade point

average was .62 (significant at the 1 per cent level of

confidence).

3* Correlation of empathy and grade point average

was .57 (significant at the 1 per cent level of confidence)*

It was concluded that empathy and intelligence arz

related to scholastic success

The independent relationship of these variables was

next ascertained using the method of partial correlation and

the net correlations calculated:

I. The net correlation between grade point average

and intelligence with the influence of empathy partialled out

or held constant, was .61 (significant at the 1 per cent lev-

el of confidence)*
2. The net correlation between grade point average








89

and empathy with intelligence partlalled out, or its influ-

ence held constant, was *35 (significant at the 1 per cent
level of confidence)#

5. The net correlation between intelligence and
empathy when the influence of grade point average is held

constant, was -.*10 (not significant).

It was concluded, that empathy and Intelligence, as

measured, are different abilities and both are related to

scholastic-succoss. It might be interesting to note here#

that no student, of those tested, with high grade average

had a low empathy score.

Empathy and student personnel work "- It has been

a fundamental principle of this study that personnel work in

the college has had as its philosophy that education is not

only the absorption of factual knowledge but the integration

of all life which contacts the personality. However, it must

not be forgotten that certain criteria are set up to be fl-

filled by each student and personnel work has aimed at aiding

the student in the long, hard climb to his desired goals. It

is the writer's hypothesis that the cultivation of the work-

ability of empathy should be used as an aid and could be an-

other phase of assistance to students through the student

personnel program.










Implications for Personnel Workers

Guiding principles The following general princi-

ples have been derived from the study:

1o It is an objective of the personnel program

that students will learn to react to the feelings and thoughts

of others and further their knowledge and adjustment in the

college and world community, The student personnel program

in most colleges is planned to offer a program of varied ac-

tivities for students some of which involve social interaction

and some, such as art exhibits, which do not. These activi-

ties are aimed at not only enriching the lives of the students

in bringing about varied experiences but also are supposed to

bring about social growth. The American culture perpetuates

the belief that an educated person not only understands things

but also people*

2. The enpathic ability of a teacher should be rec-

ognised and valued, for it is through such a person that the

student has a more sympathetic, understanding interpreter of

knowledge. Prom the data of the study it would appear that

it is in the much overlooked teacher-student relationship

that the development of empathy is potentially greatest and

most beneficial to the students If the teacher understands

the mind and motive of the student .- can put himself in the
student's place he can thereby better interpret the sub-

ject matter in the light of the student. It is the opinion