psychology dissertation empathy

Is Empathy the Key to Effective Teaching? A Systematic Review of Its Association with Teacher-Student Interactions and Student Outcomes

• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 10 March 2022
• Volume 34 , pages 1177–1216, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Karen Aldrup   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1567-5724 1 ,
• Bastian Carstensen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5259-9578 1 &
• Uta Klusmann   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8656-344X 1  

30 Citations

50 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Teachers’ social-emotional competence has received increasing attention in educational psychology for about a decade and has been suggested to be an important prerequisite for the quality of teacher-student interactions and student outcomes. In this review, we will summarize the current state of knowledge about the association between one central component of teachers’ social-emotional competence—their empathy—with these indicators of teaching effectiveness. After all, empathy appears to be a particularly promising determinant for explaining high-quality teacher-student interactions, especially emotional support for students and, in turn, positive student development from a theoretical perspective. A systematic literature research yielded 41 records relevant for our article. Results indicated that teachers reporting more empathy with victims of bullying in hypothetical scenarios indicated a greater likelihood to intervene. However, there was neither consistent evidence for a relationship between teachers’ empathy and the degree to which they supported students emotionally in general, nor with classroom management, instructional support, or student outcomes. Notably, most studies asked teachers for a self-evaluation of their empathy, whereas assessments based on objective criteria were underrepresented. We discuss how these methodological decisions limit the conclusions we can draw from prior studies and outline perspective for future research in teachers’ empathy.

Similar content being viewed by others

A world beyond self: empathy and pedagogy during times of global crisis

Effects of Empathy-based Learning in Elementary Social Studies

Towards a Pedagogy of Empathy

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Students experience a range of emotions—such as enjoyment, anxiety, and boredom—while they attain new knowledge, take exams, or strive to connect with their classmates (Ahmed et al., 2010 ; Hascher, 2008 ; Martin & Huebner, 2007 ; Pekrun et al., 2002 ). Teachers are confronted with these emotions in the classroom and beyond, and their ability to read their students’ emotional signals and attend to them sensitively is vital to form positive teacher-student relationships (Pianta, 1999 ). Therefore, teachers’ social-emotional characteristics have been suggested as essential for the quality of teacher-student interactions and, in turn, students’ psychosocial outcomes (Brackett & Katulak, 2007 ; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009 ; Rimm-Kaufman & Hamre, 2010 ). Empathy is one component of teachers’ social-emotional characteristics that appears particularly relevant for the quality of teacher-student interactions from a theoretical perspective. First, empathy is considered as the origin of human’s prosocial behavior (Preston & de Waal, 2002 ). Second, in contrast to social-emotional characteristics such as emotional self-awareness or emotion regulation, empathy explicitly refers to other people rather than to the self, more specifically, to the ability to perceive and understand students’ emotions and needs (Zins et al., 2004 ).

Because of these theoretical arguments and a recent increase in empirical studies on this topic, the goal of this article is to review prior research investigating the relationship of teachers’ empathy with the quality of teacher-student interactions and, in turn, with student outcomes (see heuristic working model in Figure 1 ). We use effective teaching here as an umbrella term to refer to both interaction quality and student outcomes. Summarizing the current level of knowledge on this topic appears particularly useful for the following reasons. First, various meanings have been attached to the term empathy, and the diversity of concepts that have been used to refer to concepts closely related to empathy (e.g., emotional intelligence, perspective taking, and emotion recognition; also see Batson, 2009 ; Olderbak & Wilhelm, 2020 ) make it difficult to oversee prior research at first glance. Second, the research field has rapidly grown throughout the last decade. Thus, to understand foci of prior research and widely neglected questions is important; for example, the review will uncover possible specific underrepresented student outcomes (e.g., cognitive vs. psychosocial). Third, researchers have applied different methodological approaches. For example, self-report scales and objective tests are available and it is debatable whether both are equally valid considering the risk of self-serving bias in questionnaires (Brackett et al., 2006 ). Against this background, it is important to summarize not only the results from prior studies but also the assessment methods they applied to inform future studies in terms of which methodological approaches are best suited to obtain valid results.

Heuristic working model on the role of teachers’ empathy in the quality of teacher-student interactions and student outcomes; paths where we expect the closest associations are in bold (also see Brackett & Katulak, 2007 ; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009 )

A General Theoretical Perspective on Empathy

Historically, two distinct lines of research have evolved around empathy (for an overview see, e.g., Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004 ; Davis, 1983 ). First, from the affective perspective , empathy describes the emotional reactions to another person’s affective experiences. According to Eisenberg and Miller ( 1987 ), this means that one experiences the same emotion as the other person. Hatfield et al. ( 1993 ) described the phenomenon of “catching” other people’s emotions as emotional contagion. Affective empathy can elicit both positive and negative emotions, and because emotions are multi-componential, the subjective feelings, thoughts, expressions, and physiological and behavioral reactions can differ depending on the type of emotion (Olderbak et al., 2014 ; Scherer, 1984 ). Empathy from the affective perspective can also mean to feel something that is appropriate but not identical with the other person’s emotion, for instance, responding with concern and sympathy to another person’s sadness (e.g., Batson et al., 2002 ).

Second, from the cognitive perspective, empathy reflects a person’s ability to understand how other people feel by taking their perspective and reading their nonverbal signals (e.g., Wispé, 1986 ). Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright ( 2004 ) pointed out that theory of mind largely converges with the cognitive definition of empathy. Furthermore, models of emotional intelligence, such as the four-branch-model (Mayer & Salovey, 1997 ), include qualities resembling empathy as defined in the cognitive perspective: the ability to perceive emotions in other people’s faces accurately and to understand emotions, that is, knowing when specific emotions are likely to arise.

In accordance with Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright ( 2004 ), we define empathy as including both affective and cognitive components (for similar approaches, also see Davis, 1983 ; Decety & Jackson, 2004 ; Preston & de Waal, 2002 ). This allows for a more comprehensive understanding of empathy and its consequences because the affective component of empathy explains why we care for other people in need and are motivated to react sensitively, whereas the cognitive component explains what enables people to know and name the feelings of others (Batson, 2009 ). Preston and de Waal ( 2002 ) also support the idea that cognitive and affective empathy are entangled and complement each other in explaining prosocial behavior. They suggest that the development of cognitive empathy promotes the “effectiveness of empathy by helping the subject to focus on the object, even in its absence, remain emotionally distinct from the object, and determine the best course of action for the object’s needs” (Preston & de Waal, 2002 , p. 20).

Considering the central role of empathy in human relationships, which has also been supported empirically (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987 ; Kardos et al., 2017 ; Mitsopoulou & Giovazolias, 2015 ; Sened et al., 2017 ; Vachon et al., 2014 ), its importance in social occupations has been recognized for a long time. For instance, Rogers ( 1959 ) proposed that the therapists’ ability to accurately perceive their clients’ point of view will facilitate the therapeutic process and, in turn, produce change in personality and behavior. In line with this assumption, studies with psychotherapists and also with physicians showed that their empathy predicted their patients’ satisfaction and clinical outcomes (Elliott et al., 2018 ; Hojat et al., 2011 ). Like psychotherapists or physicians and their clients, teachers are in close interpersonal contact with their students. Hence, it seems plausible to assume a central role of empathy in their professional lives as well.

The Role of Teacher Empathy

Caring for students and establishing positive teacher-student relationships are a central part of teachers’ professional roles (Butler, 2012 ; O’Connor, 2008 ; Watt et al., 2021 ). Furthermore, providing high levels of emotional support as indicated by a positive emotional tone in the classroom, sensitive responses to students’ emotional, social, and academic needs, and consideration of their interests is one aspect of high-quality classrooms (Pianta & Hamre, 2009 ). To achieve this, the ability to read students’ (non-)verbal signals—in others words: empathy—is vital (Pianta, 1999 ). For instance, teachers’ cognitive empathy will help them better identify from a student’s facial expressions if he or she is sad about a bad grade, angry about an argument with friends, or bored with specific learning activities. Empathic teachers will know that students may feel anxious when confronted with challenging tasks or embarrassed and frustrated when repeatedly unable to answer the teacher’s questions. Having recognized negative affective states in their students, teachers’ affective empathy should motivate them to react sensitively to their students’ emotional needs, provide comfort, and encouragement (Batson, 2009 ; Weisz et al., 2020 ). The prosocial classroom model (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009 ) also integrates these ideas and further states that teachers’ social-emotional competence, of which empathy is one part, should facilitate classroom management.

Effective classroom management means that teachers establish rules and order, apply appropriate strategies to prevent student behavior problems, and maximize time on task (Emmer & Stough, 2001 ). The ability to understand reasons for classroom disturbances could facilitate behavior management. For example, noticing students’ boredom could initiate teachers to choose a different instructional approach before students start off-task activities (Nett et al., 2010 ). Furthermore, taking the perspective of adolescents, teachers will be able to recognize their need for autonomy, which would collide with a controlling classroom management strategy (Aelterman et al., 2019 ; Eccles & Midgley, 1989 ). Yet, effective classroom management may be less dependent on teacher empathy than emotional support is. After all, classroom management includes several facets that go beyond empathy, for example, productive use of time and establishment of rules. For these tasks, specific classroom management knowledges is a key prerequisite (Kunter et al., 2013 ; Shulman, 1986 ).

Finally, even though not mentioned in the prosocial classroom model, teacher empathy could also play a role in instructional support, which is the third key aspect of high-quality teacher-student interaction in addition to emotional support and classroom management (Klieme et al., 2009 ; Pianta & Hamre, 2009 ). Instructional support comprises clear and engaging instruction that promotes content understanding and presents cognitive challenges. In addition, teachers scaffold learning by providing feedback and initiating content-related class discussions (Pianta et al., 2012 ). To adapt instruction to students’ learning needs and design engaging lessons, it is necessary to recognize when students struggle understanding content and which activities they find particularly interesting or boring (Bieg et al., 2017 ; Parsons et al., 2018 ). However, in addition instructional support requires high levels of (pedagogical) content knowledge so again one could assume that empathy plays a less central role than it does for emotional support (Kunter et al., 2013 ; Shulman, 1986 ).

In summary, from a theoretical perspective, a relationship between teachers’ empathy and the quality of teacher-student interactions, in particular with emotional support, appears plausible. By increasing interaction quality, empathy should also indirectly promote student development. Here, we distinguish between cognitive development, that is, outcomes related to students’ learning of subject matter, and psychosocial development, that is, motivational, emotional, and social variables. Prior research consistently shows that emotional support is positively associated with psychosocial outcomes, such as academic interest, self-concept, peer relatedness, and behavioral engagement, whereas classroom management and instructional support are most closely related to student achievement (Aldrup et al., 2018 ; Downer et al., 2014 ; Fauth et al., 2014b ; Kunter et al., 2013 ; Nie & Lau, 2009 ; Ruzek et al., 2016 ; Scherer et al., 2016 ; Wagner et al., 2016 ; Yildirim, 2012 ). Our heuristic working model in Figure 1 illustrates the hypothesized associations between teacher empathy, the quality of teacher-student interactions, and student outcomes. To test these theoretical assumptions, different methodological approaches are available, which we will explain next.

Assessment Approaches in Researching Teacher Empathy

Researchers interested in investigating teacher empathy can choose between different measurement approaches that are distinct in terms of two key dimensions: objective assessment versus self-report questionnaires and general versus profession-specific tools. On the one hand, researchers can apply objective assessments such as the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2002 ). The MSCEIT comprises subtests measuring a person’s ability to perceive and understand emotions in others. For example, participants see pictures of faces and are requested to select the degree to which it expresses each of five emotions. On the other hand, several self-report questionnaires are available. One prominent scale is the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980 ) including subscales on empathic concern (“I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.”) and perspective taking (“I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective.”). Emotional intelligence questionnaires typically include subscales on empathy as well. For example, the other-emotion appraisal subscale of the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (Wong & Law, 2002 ) assesses the ability to perceive emotions in others (“I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others.”).

However, it is unclear if people can validly evaluate their own empathy and especially regarding the cognitive component, which consists of knowledge and skills, a performance-based approach seems more valid. In line with these concerns, Ickes ( 2001 ) concluded that performance-based measures of empathic accuracy predict performance in social situations whereas self-report measures do not. Likewise, Brackett et al. ( 2006 ) found no association between undergraduate students’ self-reported emotional intelligence and the extent to which others perceived them as friendly and socially engaged but using an emotional intelligence test yielded statistically significant associations. Self-serving bias could be one issue reducing the validity of people’s self-reported empathy. For teachers, in particular, exaggerating their empathy appears likely because establishing close, caring connections with students is an important aspect of their professional identities (O’Connor, 2008 ; Wubbels et al., 1993 ). Finally, the use of self-report questionnaires not only poses the risk of reduced correlations due to validity issues but also of inflated correlations due to common method bias when participants report on their empathy and the dependent variables at the same time (Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). Thus, whether researchers use an objective empathy assessment or a self-report questionnaire can largely affect the results and the degree to which the findings allow for valid conclusion.

In addition, researchers in teacher empathy have to decide on the context-specificity of their instrument. On the one hand, they can use one of the tools described above that were designed for use in the general population. On the other hand, they can choose profession-specific instruments asking teachers about their empathy for students. A profession-specific assessment has several advantages. Generally, performance in specific contexts is best predicted by variables that refer to the same context (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977 ; Weinert, 2001 ). Furthermore, in contrast to day-to-day interactions with other social partners, teacher-student interactions are unique and characterized by an asymmetric nature (Pianta, 1999 ). Teachers and students differ substantially in terms of their knowledge and experiences and this lack of similarity may impede empathy (Preston & de Waal, 2002 ). Accordingly, teachers likely require profession-specific knowledge about their students’ developmental needs and concerns to facilitate empathy (Eccles & Midgley, 1989 ; Voss et al., 2011 ).

Present Study

The present study provides a systematic review of prior empirical research on the role of teachers’ empathy in effective teaching, which comprises the quality of teacher-student interactions and student development. The relevance of teachers’ empathy and related qualities has been highlighted from a theoretical perspective for over a decade (e.g., Brackett & Katulak, 2007 ; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009 ; Rimm-Kaufman & Hamre, 2010 ). Therefore, our goal was to gather what we have learned so far and whether the empirical evidence is in line with the theoretical claim that teacher empathy is positively associated with effective teaching. Furthermore, we aimed to identify questions that have remained unanswered to date in prior research on the association between teacher empathy and the quality of teacher-student interactions and student outcomes. For instance, reviewing the literature enabled us to carve out consequences of empathy that have been underrepresented in prior research (e.g., specific domains of teacher-student interaction quality or specific student outcomes) or methodological challenges that still need to be solved for ensuring the validity of results. From our perspective, this is an important step to research that can eventually support teachers, teacher educators, school psychologists, principals, and other stakeholders in the education system in evaluating the benefits of promoting teacher empathy.

The heuristic working model (Fig. 1 ), which is largely based on the prosocial classroom model (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009 ), illustrates the hypothesized role of teachers’ empathy in the quality of teacher-student interactions and student outcomes. As outlined above, we expected to find a positive relationship between teachers’ empathy and the quality of teacher-student interactions, in particular, with emotional support. After all, empathy allows teachers to understand students’ perspectives, read their nonverbal signals, and react with concern to students needing help—these qualities are all indicators of emotional support (Pianta et al., 2012 ). In turn, by promoting high-quality teacher-student interactions, teachers’ empathy can be assumed to foster student development. However, because student outcomes are more distal to teachers’ empathy than teacher-student interactions are, we expected less pronounced associations. Furthermore, because we speculated that empathy plays a role especially in teachers’ emotional support and because prior research revealed more consistent association between emotional support and psychosocial rather than cognitive student outcomes (e.g., Fauth et al., 2014b ; Kunter et al., 2013 ), we hypothesized that empathy would have the weakest relationship with student achievement.

Moreover, we speculated that methodological decisions could affect the magnitude of the relationships between teachers’ empathy, the quality of teacher-student interactions, and student outcomes. Thus, our first goal was to determine which methodological approaches have been applied in the field and consider them in reviewing the results from prior work. Based on the principle of correspondence, we expected particularly close associations when a profession-specific rather than a general assessment tool was used to measure teachers’ empathy (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977 ). In addition, we hypothesized that the reliance on self-report measures to assess empathy and its consequences leads to larger correlations because of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003 ).

Literature Search

We conducted our literature search in PsycINFO and Web of Science in October 2020 without date restrictions. To identify relevant articles on teachers’ empathy we used the following search terms: empathy OR “ perspective taking” OR compassion OR “ emotion* intelligence” OR “ emotion* knowledge” OR “ emotion* awareness” OR “ emotion* understanding” OR “ emotion* accuracy” OR “ emotion* perception” OR “ emotion* detection” OR “ emotion* identification” OR “ emotion* recognition” OR “ teacher* sensitivity” . Using a broad set of search terms allowed us to capture constructs which show substantial conceptual overlap with empathy and are frequently discussed in independent strands of research using different terminology (Mayer et al., 2008 ; Olderbak & Wilhelm, 2020 ).

In PsycINFO, among others titles, abstracts, heading words, tables of contents, and key concepts were searched for the defined terms. We conducted a thesaurus search using the exp Teachers/ command to limit results to teacher samples. Furthermore, we limited our search to quantitative studies using the quantitative study.md command. In Web of Science, the defined terms were searched in titles, abstracts, and keywords. To limit results to teacher samples, we entered our central search terms in combination with teacher* / professor* / educator* / lecturer* / faculty*. We applied the NEAR/3 command, which identifies studies mentioning two terms close to one another (in our case, three words or less in between empathy and teacher synonyms) in any order. Moreover, we excluded the following publication types: meeting abstracts, reviews, book reviews, editorial material, letters, and biographical items. In both databases, we excluded studies written in a language not based on the Latin alphabet (e.g., Chinese, Hebrew). For studies not written in English, we used Google Translate to retrieve the necessary information. This yielded 533 records from PsycINFO and 474 records from Web of Science, resulting in 931 records in total after removing duplicates.

We pursued two strategies to supplement our database search and to identify relevant articles we may have missed. First, we screened the reference list of all studies identified as eligible for our synthesis after evaluating the full-text. Second, we conducted a Google Scholar search in December 2020 to find articles citing the studies we had identified as relevant. These strategies produced 134 additional records.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

We included studies in our research synthesis if they met the following criteria. First, empathy had to be measured in accordance with our definition of empathy. For instance, we neither included studies measuring empathy in rather broad terms (e.g., teacher sensitivity assessed with the Classroom Assessment Scoring System; Pianta et al., 2012 ) nor did we code effects pertaining to fantasy and personal distress. Fantasy and personal distress are subscales of the frequently used Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980 ). However, Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright ( 2004 ) argued that these scales do not measure empathy. For example, the personal distress scale only partly refers to interpersonal situations (e.g., “In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill-at-ease.”). Second, studies had to measure an outcome relevant to our article, that is, aspects of teacher-student interaction or student outcomes. Third, it was necessary to report the statistical significance of bivariate correlations or another statistic convertible to a bivariate correlation. However, we retained studies that reported that an effect was not statistically significant without providing the exact size of the effect. Fourth, results had to be based on a sample of at least ten teachers. Regular and special education teachers of all grade levels were included (i.e., preschool to tertiary education). Importantly, even though teachers demonstrate different behaviors to realize high-quality teacher-student interactions, the three overarching domains of emotional support, classroom management, and instructional support remain relevant from preschool to tertiary education, making the inclusion of a broad range of education levels possible (Langenbach & Aagaard, 1990 ; Pianta & Hamre, 2009 ; Schneider & Preckel, 2017 ). Fifth, we only retained the study that provided the most information if multiple articles were based on the same sample and variables.

Based on these criteria and as illustrated in the PRISMA diagram (Page et al., 2021 ) in Figure 2 , 768 records were excluded after pre-screening the abstracts of the 931 records obtained through database searching. Pre-screening the abstracts of the 134 records from citation searching and footnote chasing left 61 potentially relevant records. In total, we could not retrieve a full text for six records. Thus, we proceeded screening the full-texts of the remaining 160 records from database searching and 58 records from citation searching and footnote chasing for eligibility. These steps were conducted by the first author, and in addition, the second author read 25% of the records to verify the inter-rater reliability. Cohen’s κ was .81, and we agreed in 98% of the articles regarding the questions of whether none versus any of the exclusion criteria were met. Considering reasons for exclusion via the multiple search strategies jointly, twelve did not include a relevant outcome and 13 were excluded for other reasons (e.g., eight articles did not present quantitative results and one article was based on a duplicate sample). In contrast, a comparably large number of 95 articles did not include a relevant predictor. Most often, this was due to emotional intelligence instruments not including empathy-related subscales (e.g., Trait Meta-Mood Scale, Salovey et al., 1995 ; Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short Form; Bar-On, 2002 ). Similarly, we would have needed to exclude 58 articles because they assessed relevant variables but did not report bivariate correlations or other statistics to estimate the relationship of teacher empathy with the quality of teacher-student relationships and student outcomes. Most often these studies used an emotional intelligence instrument including empathy-related subscales (e.g., Trait Emotional Intelligence Qustionnaire, Petrides & Furnham, 2003 ; MSCEIT, Mayer et al., 2002 ), but the analyses were conducted based on the total emotional intelligence scores. Due to the large number of studies that were relevant for our synthesis but that did not report the necessary statistics, we decided to contact the authors and ask for the correlation coefficients if we considered the study particularly informative for our research questions (i.e., the independent or dependent variable was measured with instruments going beyond teacher self-report). We contacted 15 authors, six responded, and one was able to provide the information we requested. Thus, 57 articles were excluded because no relevant analyses were available. Finally, 31 articles remained after full-text reading and citation searching and footnote chasing yielded ten additional records.

PRISMA diagram of the literature search process

Processing of Search Results

For the final set of records, we extracted information on the authors, the year and type of publication, and the sample (i.e., sample size, teachers’ gender, age, and years of job experience, school level, and country). Regarding our independent variable, teacher empathy, we retrieved information on (1) the components of empathy (i.e., affective, cognitive, composite); (2) the instrument; (3) whether a teacher self-report questionnaire, an objective assessment, or other approaches were used; and (4) whether the instrument took a general, a profession-specific, or a situation-specific perspective. For our dependent variables, teacher-student interactions, and student outcomes, we retrieved information on (1) the components of teacher-student interaction (i.e., emotional support, classroom management, instructional support) and student outcomes (i.e., cognitive, psychosocial) and (2) whether a teacher self-report questionnaire, student questionnaires, student achievement tests, classroom observations, or other measurements were conducted. Again, the first author performed these steps and the second author coded 20% of the records to estimate the inter-rater reliability regarding the coding of the components of empathy and the outcome categories. Both assigned the same category to 89% of the predictor and outcome variables. Finally, we retrieved correlation coefficients and information on statistical significance. To answer our research questions, we primarily relied on vote-counting and determined the number of effects that were statistically significant at α < .05. However, we also wanted to give the reader an impression of the size of the effects. Thus, in the few cases where effect sizes other than correlations were reported, we converted them to allow for between-study comparisons. More specifically, we used the formulas provided by Thalheimer and Cook ( 2002 ) to convert F -statistics and t -statistics to Cohen’s d and the formulas provided by Borenstein ( 2009 ) to convert odds ratios to Cohen’s d and to convert Cohen’s d to r . In addition, we recoded the correlations between empathy and negative qualities of teacher-student interactions and maladaptive student outcomes to facilitate the interpretation of the correlation coefficients. Thus, positive correlation coefficients can now be interpreted as indicative of effects in line with our heuristic working model (Figure 1 ). Tables 1 , 2 , 3 , and 4 provide a summary of the reviewed articles organized depending on the methodological approach that was used. The data and the review protocol are available at PsychArchives (Aldrup et al., 2021 ).

In the following, we will first describe general characteristics of the records included in this article and will then provide details about the methodological approaches used. The main part of this section is dedicated to outlining results from prior research on the relationship of teacher empathy with teacher-student interactions and student outcomes. Table 5 gives a summary of the statistically significant effects and the effect sizes for each dependent variable, and Figure 3 provides an overview of the effect sizes depending on the methodological type of study and the dependent variable.

Overview of all effects depending on the methodological type of study and the dependent variables

General Study Characteristics

This research synthesis is based on 23 journal articles, 15 theses, two proceedings papers, and one book chapter, which were published between 2004 and 2020 ( Md = 2014, M = 2014, SD = 3.92).The 41 included records reported results from 42 independent samples from 12 different countries—mostly the USA ( n = 22), followed by Australia and China ( n = 4). The teacher samples comprised between 11 and 467 teachers ( M = 119.02, SD = 103.10). On average, the teachers were M = 36.12 years old and 76.8% were female. The majority of studies included only in-service teachers ( n = 35), who had M = 9.08 years of job experience on average. Most samples were composed either of only secondary school teachers ( n = 16) or a combination of secondary school, elementary school, and, in some cases, early childhood teachers ( n = 8). Each five to six samples included exclusively early childhood teachers, elementary school teachers, or educators at the tertiary level. Only 14 studies provided information on the school subject the participants taught: seven samples included teachers from different subject domains, three assessed English, two mathematics, one physical education, and one law teachers.

The majority of studies (93%) reported only cross-sectional analyses regarding the link between teacher empathy and teacher-student interactions or student outcomes. However, Franklin ( 2014 ) measured empathy at one time point but included two waves of student outcomes and Aldrup et al., ( 2020 ) used longitudinal data across three time points. We only considered the within-wave correlations to make results from these studies comparable to the majority of articles that were cross-sectional. Finally, using a randomized pre-post-control group design, Okonofua et al. ( 2016 ) investigated the effects of an empathic mindset intervention.

Aspects of Empathy and Measurement

In most samples, the focus was on the cognitive ( n = 28) as opposed to the affective component ( n = 8) of empathy. In five samples, both cognitive and affective empathy were assessed and in one sample, a composite measure was used. In terms of measurement instruments, self-report questionnaires were predominant ( n = 29 samples/studies). In the following, we will list the self-report tools that were used in more than one study. The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980 ) was applied ten times followed by the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (Wong & Law, 2002 ), which was used four times. Three other studies measured the ability to perceive emotions in others as well, but based on the Self-Rated Emotional Intelligence Scale (Brackett et al., 2006 ). Three studies used the BarOn Emotional Quotient-Inventory , which measures the ability to understand and respect other people’s feelings (Bar-On, 1997 ). In contrast to these questionnaires designed for use in the general population, only one study applied a profession-specific instrument asking teachers, for example, “I am happy for students if they enjoy happy moments” (Wu et al., 2019 ). Likewise, the Bullying Attitudes Questionnaire (Craig et al., 2000 ; Yoon, 2004 ), which was employed in seven studies, measures teachers’ self-reported empathic concern for student victims of bullying and is therefore situated in the professional context as well.

Nine studies used approaches based on objective criteria to discriminate between more and less empathic teachers rather than using teacher questionnaires. Four studies employed the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002 ). Similar tests—the Amsterdam Emotion Recognition Test (van der Schalk et al., 2011 ) , the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (MacCann & Roberts, 2008 ), and the Test of Emotional Intelligence (Śmieja et al., 2014 )—were each used in one study. Friedman ( 2014 ) pursued a slightly different strategy and applied the newly developed Teacher Emotional Intelligence Measure , which asks teachers about their likely response to a hypothetical disciplinary incident in class in an open format. A coding manual is used to determine the teacher’s ability to perceive and understand the disputant’s emotions and to identify how other students in class would feel . Zinsser et al. ( 2015 ) conducted teacher focus groups on the role of emotions in classrooms. Based on teachers’ responses to semi-structured questions, trained coders detected the teachers’ emotion knowledge, that is, their ability to recognize and understand emotions in their students. Moreover, two studies asked students to report on their teachers’ empathy (Aldrup et al.,  2020 ; Latchaw, 2017 ). Thus, like in the studies by Friedman ( 2014 ) and Zinsser et al. ( 2015 ), the focus was on teachers’ empathy in the professional context and even more specifically in the respective subject domain. Finally, one article including two samples (Okonofua et al., 2016 ) reported results from an intervention aimed to induce an empathic mindset in their teacher-student interactions. However, the intervention study did not include a treatment check so it remains unknown whether it actually changed teacher empathy.

Effects on Teacher-Student Interactions

We identified 33 studies (34 samples) investigating the role of empathy in teacher-student interactions: 28 studies measured aspects of emotional support, ten measured classroom management, and six measured instructional support. Five studies applied measures of teacher-student interaction that we could not clearly assign to one of the interaction domains.

General Teacher-Student Interaction

Three out of five studies measuring blended aspects of teacher-student interactions found statistically significant associations (57% of the investigated effects were significant and positive; see Table 5 ). Secondary school teachers who rated their own ability to perceive other’s emotions higher evaluated their teaching performance ( r = .26, p < .001) more positively (Wu et al., 2019 ). In addition, in two studies with English as a foreign language teachers at high schools and private language institutes (Ghanizadeh & Moafian, 2010 ; Khodadady, 2012 ), teachers’ self-reported empathy was linked to their students’ ratings of teacher qualification (i.e., knowledge, self-confidence, comprehensibility; r = .10, p < .01) and students’ overall ratings of instruction ( r = .26, p < .05). In contrast, Corcoran and Tormey ( 2013 ) found no, or even counterintuitive associations of teachers’ test scores in perceiving ( r = –.15, p < .01) and understanding emotions ( r = .07, p > .05) with student teachers’ practicum performance evaluations, for example, the use of appropriate pedagogic strategies and material or the quality of teacher-student relationships. Petsos and Gorizidis ( 2019 ) did not find a relationship between secondary school teachers’ self-reported perception of other’s emotions and the extent to which students felt their teacher assigned students responsibility ( r = .08, p > .05).

Emotional Support

The number of studies finding a statistically significantly positive association between teachers’ empathy and their emotional support for students ( n = 15) slightly outweighed the number of studies not supporting this link ( n = 11) or finding mixed evidence ( n = 2). Because a substantial number of studies focused on teachers’ reactions to bullying among students as one specific aspect of emotional support, we will summarize results from this line of research separately after describing the findings for emotional support.

Six studies found statistically significant positive associations with teachers’ empathy but eleven found mixed or no evidence (25% of the investigated effects were significant and positive, 73% were not significant; see Table 5 ). Abacioglu et al. ( 2020 ) revealed that primary school teachers evaluating their perspective taking more positively reported using more culturally ( r = .33, p < .01) and socially sensitive teaching practices ( r = .24, p < .01). Similarly, teachers reporting a greater ability to perceive others’ emotions considered their attention to students needs as more pronounced ( r = .24, p < .01) (Nizielski et al., 2012 ). Furthermore, the theses by Gottesman ( 2016 ) and Metaxas ( 2018 ) showed that teachers reporting more empathy were more likely to choose emotionally supportive strategies in response to a hypothetical student exhibiting challenging behavior ( r = .36 and r = .24, p < .01). In these studies, teachers from different grade levels participated spanning pre- to high school. Finally, there were two studies using not only teacher self-report questionnaires and finding a relationship between empathy and emotional support. Khodadady ( 2012 ) found that high school students perceived better rapport with their teacher ( r = .10, p < .01) and greater teacher fairness ( r = .11, p < .01) when teachers reported greater empathy. Moreover, secondary school students reported more positive teacher-student relationships if their teacher attained higher test scores in perceiving ( r = .50, p = .02) and understanding emotions ( r = .45, p = .04) (Barłożek, 2015 ). However, neither Khodadady ( 2012 ) nor Barłożek ( 2015 ) accounted for the nesting of students in classrooms, which is associated with a higher risk of false positive findings (Snijders & Bosker, 2012 ).

Notably, eleven other studies that were not exclusively using teacher self-report questionnaires provided evidence that was less clear. Hu et al. ( 2018 ) assessed preschool teachers’ self-evaluations of their ability to perceive other’s emotions and asked both teachers and external observers to evaluate the quality of emotional support. Emotional perception was statistically significantly related only to teachers’ self-reported emotional support ( r = .31, p < .001). Swartz and McElwain ( 2012 ) asked pre-service early childhood teachers about their perspective taking and observed their responses to children’s emotional displays. Teachers’ perspective taking was unrelated to their strategies when dealing with positive emotions, but when children displayed anger or sadness, empathic teachers were more likely to show supportive ( r = .52, p < .01) rather than non-supportive behavior ( r = –.44, p < .05). Friedman ( 2014 ) also conducted classroom observations to assess the quality of emotional support. Middle and high school teachers with higher scores in a newly developed emotional intelligence test regarding their awareness, perception, and understanding of students’ emotions did not establish a more positive climate and did not show more sensitivity or regard for students’ perspectives. In addition, preschool teachers demonstrating superior emotion knowledge in a focus group were not observed to show more emotional support in the study by Zinsser et al. ( 2015 ). In a similar vein, Heckathorn ( 2013 ) did not find a statistically significant positive and even one negative correlation between teachers’ perception and understanding of emotions as assessed with the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002 ) and the degree to that nontraditional evening graduate adult master’s level students perceived affiliation among learners, opportunities to influence lessons, and teacher support in terms of sensitivity and encouragement. Furthermore, high school teachers’ tests scores in emotion understanding were unrelated to their self-reported quality of teacher-student relationships (O’Shea, 2019 ) and participation in an empathic mindset intervention did not make middle school students feel more respected by their teacher—however, the intervention had an effect for students with a history of suspension (Okonofua et al., 2016 ). In the thesis by Fults ( 2019 ), there was no association between middle school teachers’ self-reported empathy and students’ perception of proximity and Wen ( 2020 ) did not establish a link between college teachers’ self-reported ability to recognize other people’s emotions and student-reported receptivity and liking of the teacher. Likewise, Petsos and Gorizidis ( 2019 ) found no statistically significant correlation between junior high school teachers’ self-reported emotion perception of others and students’ perceptions of their teachers’ helpful and friendly behavior and their understanding of students as opposed to displaying dissatisfaction and admonishing students. Finally, middle school teachers reporting greater empathy with victims of bullying or general perspective taking and empathic concern were not more likely to perceive their teacher-student relationship as close and free of conflict (Hammel, 2013 ; only empathic concern and closeness: r = .27, p < .05). To summarize, teachers who perceived themselves as empathic reported providing more emotional support. However, this impression was rarely evident in students’ and observers’ perspectives. Furthermore, higher test scores in empathy were unrelated to the quality of emotional support.

Likelihood to Intervene in Bullying

Nine of the twelve studies in this strand of research found an effect (62% of the investigated effects were significant and positive; see Table 5 ). Seven studies, including teachers from preschool to the secondary school level, found that teachers feeling empathic concern for a hypothetical student who was a victim of bullying reported a greater likelihood of intervening in the bullying situation (Byers et al., 2011 ; Dedousis-Wallace & Shute, 2009 ; Hines, 2013 ; Huang et al., 2018 ; Sokol et al., 2016 ; VanZoeren, 2015 ; Yoon, 2004 ). In these studies, the effect sizes were moderate to large (all r s > .30; see Figure 3 ). Likewise, teachers’ self-reported general empathic concern, perspective taking, and tendency to experience the feelings of others were positively associated with their likelihood to intervene in bullying from early childhood to college education (Dedousis-Wallace & Shute, 2009 ; Fifield, 2011 ; Huang et al., 2018 ; Singh, 2014 ). One exception of this pattern was the thesis by Hammel ( 2013 ). Only when the hypothetical student was the victim of social exclusion, but not when students became victims of gossip or when friends threatened to end a relationship, was there a statistically significant correlation between middle school teachers’ empathy with the victim and their likelihood to intervene. Moreover, teachers’ general empathic concern and perspective taking were not statistically significantly related with the likelihood to intervene. Similarly, Garner et al. ( 2013 ) did not find a relationship between prospective teachers’ self-reported cognitive empathy and their likelihood to intervene in bullying scenarios. Finally, when pre-service elementary and secondary teachers did not indicate their likelihood to intervene in bullying via self-report, but when they were asked in an open-format with researchers coding their responses, there was less evidence of a relationship between teachers’ self-reported empathic concern and perspective taking with their responses to bullying (Tettegah, 2007 ; 3 of 12 statistically significant effects).

Classroom Management

In seven of ten studies spanning early childhood to tertiary education, there was no statistically significant relationship between teachers’ empathy and classroom management (Abacioglu et al., 2019 ; Friedman, 2014 ; Fults, 2019 ; Gottesman, 2016 ; Hall, 2009 ; Heckathorn, 2013 ; Petsos & Gorizidis, 2019 ). As Table 5 shows, 83% of the investigated effects were not statistically significant. Except for Gottesman ( 2016 ), these studies used other than teacher self-report measures for either empathy or classroom management. In line with the trend to find an association especially when both predictor and outcome are measured via teacher self-report, Hu et al. ( 2018 ) found no association between preschool teachers’ self-reported emotional perception and observer ratings of their classroom management ( r = .03, p > .05), but they did find a link with teachers’ own perceptions of their classroom management ( r = .38, p < .001). However, two studies revealed a positive association between empathy and classroom management. In her thesis, Metaxas ( 2018 ) showed that primary and secondary school teachers reporting being more empathic were less likely to choose punitive behavior ( r = −.22, p < .01) in response to a hypothetical challenging student. Relatedly, Okonofua et al. ( 2016 ) revealed that middle school teachers participating in an empathic mindset intervention were more likely to consider empathic disciplinary strategies ( r = .40, p < .01) rather than punitive approaches ( r = −.41, p < .01). However, these results are again based on teachers’ evaluations of hypothetical scenarios.

Instructional Support

In three of six studies, all relying not only on teacher self-report questionnaires, there was no evidence (85% of the investigated effects were not significant; see Table 5 ) for a relationship between teachers’ empathy and the levels of instructional support they provide for students in secondary school or for college students (Friedman, 2014 ; Hall, 2009 ; Wen, 2020 ). Even though Heckathorn ( 2013 ) found that adults in an evening master’s program rated those teachers who obtained higher test scores in perceiving emotions as providing more organized and clear instruction ( r = .26, p < .01), there was no statistically significant correlation with understanding emotions. Moreover, neither perceiving nor understanding emotions were associated with personal goal attainment defined as the degree to which the teacher attended to students’ individual learning needs and interests. Notably, these results are based on only N = 11 teachers. Again, Hu et al. ( 2018 ) found a link between preschool teachers’ self-reported emotional perception with their self-reported quality of instructional support ( r = .36, p < .001), but not with observers’ ratings of instructional support ( r = −.03, p > .05). Khodadady ( 2012 ) obtained a small, but statistically significant positive relationship between high school teachers’ self-reported empathy and student-reported facilitation ( r = .05, p < .05). However, the nesting of students within classes was not considered in the analyses so caution is warranted in interpreting this finding.

Effects on Student Outcomes

We identified twelve studies investigating the role of empathy in student outcomes: four studies measured cognitive student outcomes and ten measured psychosocial student outcomes including, for example, student engagement, conduct problems, or prosocial behavior.

Cognitive Student Outcomes

Two of four studies, which assessed teacher empathy via student report and a test instrument, provided less support (64% of the investigated effects were not significant; see Table 5 ) for the role of secondary school teacher empathy in students’ cognitive outcomes in terms of achievement test scores, grades, and students’ self-reported abilities in mathematics (Aldrup et al.,  2020 ; Curci et al., 2014 ). Franklin ( 2014 ) found a positive relationship between elementary school teachers’ self-reported empathic concern and students’ reading ( r = .17, p < .05), but not mathematics achievement growth ( r = .00, p > .05). Latchaw ( 2017 ) revealed that college students rating their teachers’ awareness of others’ emotions higher expected a better end-of-course grade ( r = .22, p < .01).

Psychosocial Student Outcomes

Seven of ten studies found little evidence of a relationship between teacher empathy and students’ psychosocial outcomes (72% of the investigated effects were not significant; see Table 5 ). More specifically, preschool teachers who reported a greater ability in perceiving the emotions of others neither noticed more social skills nor fewer peer problems, general anxiety, emotional problems, aggressiveness, conduct problems, or hyperactivity among their students (Poulou, 2017 ; Poulou et al., 2018 ). Contrary to expectations, students even reported more frequent bullying in middle schools employing teachers who rated their empathic concern and perspective taking higher (Underwood, 2010 ). Moreover, teachers at integrated schools who perceived themselves as more empathic did not rate their students as showing less misconduct in class (Nizielski et al., 2012 ) and students did not indicate greater receptivity and involvement in these teachers’ courses (Wen, 2020 ). Likewise, in two small studies ( N ≤ 12) with teachers at a junior high school and in an adult evening master’s program, respectively, there was no association between teachers’ ability to perceive and understand emotions as measured with the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002 ) and student-reported involvement in class (Heckathorn, 2013 ), their scholastic self-esteem, metacognitive beliefs, and goal setting (Curci et al., 2014 ; one of 14 correlations was statistically significant, but all rs  < .12).

In contrast, Aldrup et al., ( 2020 ) showed that secondary school students who perceived their mathematics teacher as more sensitive reported lower mathematics anxiety and were appraised as less anxious by their parents (−.18 ≤ r ≤ −.07). Okonofua et al. ( 2016 ) found that middle school students’ suspension rates were statistically significantly lower among teachers who had participated in an empathic mindset intervention ( r = –.10, p < .001). Furthermore, Polat and Ulusoy-Oztan ( 2009 ) showed that primary school students rated their emotional intelligence higher when their teachers evaluated their own ability to perceive other people’s emotions more positively ( r = .30, p < .01).

Empathy is considered one factor determining prosocial behavior among all humans (Preston & de Waal, 2002 ) and argued to be relevant for teachers’ professional effectiveness given the high social and emotional demands inherent to daily interactions with students (Brackett & Katulak, 2007 ; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009 ). Against this background, we aimed to review the empirical evidence for these theoretical assumptions and identified 41 journal articles, theses, chapters, and conference papers providing insights to the role of teacher empathy in the quality of teacher-student interactions and student outcomes. To date, most research has accumulated on the relationship between teachers’ empathy and their emotional support for students, whereas we know much less about other domains of teacher-student interactions and student outcomes. Overall, there was limited evidence for a statistically significant positive association between empathy and any of the dependent variables considered in this research synthesis. The exception were studies relying exclusively on teacher self-report for assessing empathy and their own (likely) behavior in terms of quality of teacher-student interactions (e.g., Abacioglu et al., 2020 ). In this regard, the most consistent finding was that teachers reporting greater empathy for a bullied student in a hypothetical scenario indicated a greater likelihood to intervene in the situation (e.g., Sokol et al., 2016 ; Yoon, 2004 ). Even though these studies show that feeling concerned for students in specific situations makes teachers more motivated to help them, it remains unknown whether teachers would actually behave as intended in a real classroom situation and whether they would choose appropriate interventions. Thus, at first glance, these findings do not support the theoretical assumptions of an association of teacher empathy with the quality of teacher-student interactions and student outcomes.

One explanation might be that other social-emotional characteristics are more important for predicting the quality of teacher-student interactions, emotional support in particular, and student outcomes. For example, recent studies linked teachers’ mindfulness—a nonjudgmental awareness and acceptance of one’s present experiences (Brown & Ryan, 2003 )—to higher levels of emotional support for students (Jennings, 2015 ; Jennings et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, there is growing evidence regarding the importance of teacher well-being. Prior studies found a positive association between teachers’ work enthusiasm with emotional support, student motivation, and achievement, whereas the reverse was true for burnout symptoms (Arens & Morin, 2016 ; Klusmann et al., 2016 ; Keller et al., 2016 ; Kunter et al., 2013 ; Shen et al., 2015 ). However, it is also possible that researchers have not been able to discover a relationship between empathy, the quality of teacher-student interactions, and student outcomes because they have not attended to some key methodological and conceptual issues that we consider vital for obtaining valid results in future research.

Avenues for Future Research

Dealing with common method bias and the valid assessment of empathy.

The majority of studies we reviewed applied teacher self-report measures of empathy in combination with self-report measures of interaction quality and student outcomes. This poses the risk of common method bias, which can cause positively biased associations between predictor and outcome variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). Therefore, research can only provide valid conclusions about the role of teacher empathy in the quality of teacher-student interactions and student outcomes if more studies combine different data sources. To achieve this, researchers in the field have pursued different strategies.

One approach is to treat common method bias by measuring the dependent variable via student questionnaires, classroom observations, or achievement tests (e.g., Hu et al., 2018 ). This approach enables researchers to investigate whether teacher empathy becomes manifest in teachers’ actions and whether others notice differences between teachers with higher versus lower empathy. Considering the perspectives of other raters except for the teacher appears particularly important because students and external observers often perceive interaction quality differently than the teachers themselves do (e.g., Fauth et al., 2014a ; Kunter & Baumert, 2006 ). In this review, ten studies combined teacher self-report measures with other sources for assessing the outcome. The evidence in these studies was mixed and some found at least partial support for the hypothesis that empathy is associated with effective teaching (Franklin, 2014 ; Ghanizadeh & Moafian, 2010 ; Khodadady, 2012 ; Polat & Ulusoy-Oztan, 2009 ; Swartz & McElwain, 2012 ) whereas others did not (Fults, 2019 ; Hu et al., 2018 ; Petsos & Gorizidis, 2019 ; Underwood, 2010 ; Wen, 2020 ).

One explanation for the heterogeneous results could lie in the comparably small sample sizes. Only two of the studies were based on more than 100 participants—a sample size that is required for detecting medium effects—and five included 50 or less. Small sample sizes reduce the statistical power to detect meaningful effects. Yet, there is also evidence that effect sizes are larger in small samples, perhaps, because they are less likely to be published when yielding insignificant results than expensive larger studies (Slavin & Smith, 2009 ). Thus, future studies should include a sufficient number of teachers to avoid these issues.

Another reason for the inconsistent findings could be the construct validity of self-report empathy measures. Caring for others is at the core of teachers’ professional identity so self-serving bias could cause teachers to describe themselves more positively in terms of their empathy level (O’Connor, 2008 ; Wubbels et al., 1993 ). Furthermore, the self-assessment of social-emotional abilities is now questioned as correlations with objective tools are rather small but objective tools appear more closely related to social behavior (Brackett & Mayer, 2003 , Brackett et al., 2006 ). Therefore, the use of tests rather than self-report questionnaires (e.g., Hall, 2009 ) could improve the measurement of empathy in future research. At the same time, this strategy provides the opportunity to avoid common method bias. However, the few studies that have pursued this strategy have mostly yielded insignificant results. Again, only two of nine studies included more than 100 participants and five drew on only 32 teachers or less. Thus, studies with appropriate power are needed to evaluate the potential of objective empathy assessments.

In addition, we expected the closest relationship between empathy and emotional support, but as evident in Figure 3 , many of the methodologically sophisticated studies included either other domains of teacher-student interaction quality or student outcomes (e.g., Corcoran & Tormey, 2013 ; Hall, 2009 ). Thus, it was less likely to find pronounced effects in these studies from a conceptual point of view.

Finally, except for Friedman ( 2014 ), previous work with objective assessments has relied on tools that appear rather distant from teachers’ daily work with students. For example, in one subtest of the frequently used MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002 ), participants see images of landscapes and artwork and evaluate the degree to which the pictures express certain emotions. Consequently, it appears necessary to use measurement instruments more closely aligned with teachers’ professional tasks.

A Profession-Specific Perspective on Teacher Empathy

As the findings from our review showed, studies investigating the relationship between empathy with victims of bullying and the likelihood to intervene yielded the most robust and substantial correlations. In addition to the fact that both were assessed from the teacher perspective, one explanation for the close association could be that independent and dependent variable refer to the same situation. Another finding supporting the value of a profession-specific approach is that among the few studies of this kind, which either asked students about their teachers’ sensitivity for their emotions or intervened in teachers’ empathy with students (Aldrup et al., 2020 ; Okonofua et al., 2016 ), found statistically significant associations with interaction quality and student outcomes. However, only a few researchers have adapted and developed empathy questionnaires and tests that explicitly ask teachers to refer to the professional context; hence, more instruments of this kind are needed (Friedman, 2014 ; Wu et al., 2019 ; Zinsser et al., 2015 ). To go beyond paper-pencil formats and for a realistic assessment of cognitive empathy, the dyadic interaction paradigm (Ickes, 2001 ), which is frequently applied in empathic accuracy research, could serve as a guideline. Here, a dyad’s interaction is videotaped and each participant individually writes down their thoughts and feelings during specific episodes. Then, the partner’s task is to indicate what their counterpart experienced. In researching teachers’ empathy, one could videotape teacher-student interactions. Furthermore, teachers’ affective empathy has been only assessed via questionnaires thus far, which appears reasonable because it reflects a person’s subjective experiences. Nonetheless, one could also consider using teachers’ facial expressions in response to students’ emotions as an indicator of their affective empathy (e.g., Marx et al., 2019 ).

Moreover, in developing profession-specific instruments, considering different levels of specificity would allow us to gain additional insights about the degree to which teacher empathy is context-dependent. One option would be a situation-specific assessment as was done in bullying research (e.g., Yoon, 2004 ). Likewise, Friedman ( 2014 ) developed a tool for measuring teachers’ ability to perceive and understand students’ emotions during a hypothetical disciplinary incident in class. Another option would be a class-specific assessment. At the secondary school level in particular, teachers see different groups of students each day and it may be easier for them to empathize with some than with others, for example, depending on the students’ age or the number of lessons they see each other per week. Furthermore, Frenzel et al. ( 2015 ) showed that teachers’ emotions largely depend on the class they teach. Being in a class that elicits enjoyment rather than anger or anxiety could facilitate cognitive empathy because positive emotions promote cognitive processes (e.g., broaden-and-build theory, Fredrickson, 2001 ). Of course, one could think of several other relevant specific situations such as empathy with students struggling with content or with students from specific backgrounds who are at risk of adverse developmental trajectories. For example, Warren ( 2015 ) developed a scale measuring teacher empathy for African American males.

Importantly, when using situation- or class-specific assessments, we suggest aligning the specificity of the empathy measure and the dependent variable of interest. We will give an example to illustrate this point: The instrument developed by Friedman ( 2014 ) measures empathy in a very specific situation, but does not tell us about the teachers’ ability to recognize their students’ emotions and take their perspectives in other contexts. Hence, finding an association with dependent variables closely connected to the specific situation of the empathy measure is most likely, whereas a relationship with broader variables appears less probable. Finding no relationship between Friedman’s ( 2014 ) measure of empathy and classroom observations of teacher-student interactions is in line with this idea. Inversely, this means that one should refrain from using situation- or class-specific instruments when the research interest is in explaining teaching effectiveness more broadly.

Interplay with Other Teacher Characteristics and Students’ Prerequisites

In addition to methodological challenges, our unexpected finding could be because teacher empathy alone is not sufficient to achieve high-quality teacher-student interactions and positive student outcomes. First, a hierarchical organization of social-emotional competence is hypothesized with empathy being a precursor of more advanced abilities such as emotion and relationship management (Joseph & Newman, 2010 ; Mayer & Salovey, 1997 ). From this perspective, it can be argued that teacher empathy can only be effective in combination with knowledge and skills about effective behavior in social situations. In line with this, Aldrup, Carstensen et al. ( 2020 ) showed that teachers with greater knowledge about relationship management reported providing more emotional support and perceived their relationships with students more positively.

Second, it is possible that teacher empathy only shows when teachers are motivated to act accordingly. In other words, they may not always display their full empathic potential. Considering the finding that teachers’ emotions largely depend on the group of students they teach (Frenzel et al., 2015 ), one could speculate that teachers will be more motivated to demonstrate empathic behavior in a class they like, making a class-specific assessment of empathy particularly interesting in this line of research. Further aspects, such as emotional stability, pro-sociality, or self-efficacy, have been suggested as relevant determinants of the degree to which people perform empathic behavior (Cavell, 1990 ; DuBois & Felner, 2003 ; Rose-Krasnor, 1997 ). Furthermore, teacher empathy may interact with their well-being such that burnout and the lack of emotional resources impair teachers’ empathy (Trauernicht et al., 2021 ). Likewise, other teacher characteristics may mask their empathy. For instance, the belief that strict discipline is needed because children are naturally rebellious and lazy could lead teacher to suppress empathic tendencies (c.f., Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2006 ).

Third, empathy may not always be beneficial as is evident in the phenomenon of compassion fatigue. Compassion fatigue denotes a loss of interest in empathizing with others and a lack of energy, which can result from self-giving work with people who are in pressing need for help (Adams et al., 2006 ; Knobloch Coetzee & Klopper, 2010 ). In other words, excessive empathy puts people at risk of suffering themselves. For example, teachers with greater empathy for victims of bullying also feel angrier and sadder when witnessing bullying incidents (Sokol et al., 2016 ). To alleviate negative feelings and protect one’s emotional resources, teachers may eventually distance themselves from their students (for a similar line of reasoning, also see Maslach et al., 2001 ). In line with this, prior research showed that people who feel distressed by seeing other people suffering avoid the situation or even show aggressive reactions (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1990 ). Hence, both low and extremely high levels of teacher empathy might be problematic potentially causing a nonlinear relationship with the quality of teacher-student interactions and student outcomes. Considering this, teachers may only benefit from extremely high levels of empathy if they are able to distance themselves from the emotional demands of their work. Potentially interesting moderators of the empathy-outcome relationship include emotion regulation and mindfulness. Prior research shows that they reduce negative emotions so they could be a protective resource for highly empathic teachers (Klingbeil & Renshaw, 2018 ; Lee et al., 2016 ).

In addition to investigating the interplay between empathy and other social-emotional teacher characteristics, we suggest considering whether students’ prerequisite moderate the role of empathy in the quality of teacher-student interactions and student outcomes. For example, prior research shows that teachers play a more prominent role in the development of students at risk of adverse educational trajectories (Hamre & Pianta, 2005 ; Klusmann et al., 2016 ). Hence, teacher empathy might be particularly relevant for students with a low socioeconomic status or with cognitive or social-emotional difficulties. Another important aspect might be students’ age. On the one hand, one could assume that teacher empathy is particularly relevant for young students, for example, because they are still more dependent on adult support to regulate their emotions (Calkins & Hill, 2009 ). On the other hand, student disengagement represents a particular challenge during adolescence and teachers often struggle to meet adolescents’ developmental needs (Eccles & Midgley, 1989 ; Wang & Eccles, 2012 ). Thus, teachers who consider adolescents’ perspectives and care for their feelings might be particularly important during this phase. In line with this assumption, meta-analytic evidence shows that the association between the teacher-student relationship and student engagement and achievement gets closer for older students (Roorda et al., 2017 ).

Limitations

In this article, we aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of prior research on the relationship between teacher empathy, teacher-student interactions, and student outcomes. Therefore, we included studies from different lines of research that diverge in their operationalization of empathy. For example and as outlined in the Results section, even though both the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980 ) and the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002 ) were designed to measure whether one is able to consider other’s perspectives, the types of questions/tasks differ substantially. Thus, it is unclear whether all studies actually measured the same underlying construct. A similar problem applies to our dependent variables where there was large heterogeneity in terms of the instruments.

Furthermore, we decided to consider theses, proceedings papers, and book chapters in addition to studies from peer-reviewed journals. Almost half of the studies were not from journal articles. Thus, our approach allowed for a more exhaustive overview of the field and helped to reduce the risk of publication bias. The large number of studies with insignificant results let us conclude that our strategy for reducing publication bias was successful. However, it may have reduced the quality of the included studies. Even though follow-up analyses revealed no differences between the publication types in terms of sample size or the avoidance of common method bias, we cannot rule out other potential limitations such as lower quality of data collection, preparation, and analyses in studies from sources other than journals.

In addition, a large number of studies assessed constructs relevant for our review without reporting correlation analyses. Due to our concerns about the reliance on teacher self-report measures for assessing the independent and dependent variables, we decided to contact the authors only when they had pursued a different methodological approach. Because studies that included only teacher questionnaires typically found closer associations, we should note that our decision might have reduced the number of statistically significant results.

Finally, a meta-analytical analysis would have been ideal to investigate the extent to which methodological study characteristics moderate the size of effects (Borenstein, 2009 ). Nonetheless, we decided against this approach as we identified only a relatively small number of relevant studies for most dependent variables. In addition, we had the impression that computing an overall effect size was not appropriate because of the huge heterogeneity in the research field. The different methodological approaches are not equally valid for assessing empathy and sophisticated studies typically included small samples reducing their weight in meta-analyses.

Theoretical models (e.g., Jennings & Greenberg, 2009 ) emphasize the relevance of teachers’ empathy for high-quality teacher-student interactions and positive student outcomes, but to date, only limited evidence supports this claim. Nonetheless, rather than abandoning the idea that teacher empathy is a relevant construct, we call for methodologically sophisticated studies that go beyond teacher self-report and allow for robust conclusions. Perhaps, we would otherwise overlook an important social-emotional teacher characteristic, where there is an urgent need for action given that teachers frequently struggle to recognize student emotions (Karing et al., 2013 ; Spinath, 2005 ).

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the review

*Abacioglu, C. S., Volman, M., & Fischer, A. H. (2019). Teacher interventions to student misbehaviors: The role of ethnicity, emotional intelligence, and multicultural attitudes. Current Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00498-1

Adams, R. E., Boscarino, J. A., & Figley, C. R. (2006). Compassion fatigue and psychological distress among social workers: A validation study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76 (1), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.76.1.103

Article   Google Scholar  

*Abacioglu, C. S., Volman, M., & Fischer, A. H. (2020). Teachers’ multicultural attitudes and perspective taking abilities as factors in culturally responsive teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 90 (3), 736–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12328

Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J. R. J., & Reeve, J. (2019). Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111 (3), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000293

Ahmed, W., van der Werf, G., Minnaert, A., & Kuyper, H. (2010). Students’ daily emotions in the classroom: Intra-individual variability and appraisal correlates. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (4), 583–597. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X498544

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84 (5), 888–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888

Arens, A. K., & Morin, A. J. S. (2016). Relations between teachers’ emotional exhaustion and students’ educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108 (6), 800–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000105

Aldrup, K., Carstensen, B., & Klusmann, U. (2021). Is empathy the key to effective teaching? A systematic review of its association with teacher-student interactions and student outcomes. PsychArchives . https://doi.org/10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.5209

Aldrup, K., Carstensen, B., Köller, M. M., & Klusmann, U. (2020). Measuring teachers’ social-emotional competence: Development and validation of a situational judgment test. Frontiers in Psychology, 11,  217 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00892

Aldrup, K., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., Göllner, R., & Trautwein, U. (2018). Social support and classroom management are related to secondary students’ general school adjustment: A multilevel structural equation model using student and teacher ratings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110 (8), 1066–1083. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000256

*Aldrup, K., Klusmann, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2020). Reciprocal associations between students’ mathematics anxiety and achievement: Can teacher sensitivity make a difference? Journal of Educational Psychology,  112 (4), 735–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000398

*Barłożek, N. (2015). EFL Teachers’ affective competencies and their relationships with the students. In Piechurska-Kuciel, Ewa & Szyszka, Magdalena (Ed.), The ecosystem of the foreign language learner (pp. 97–115). Springer.

Bar-On, R. (1997). BarOn Emotional Quationt Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual . Multi-Health Systems.

Google Scholar  

Bar-On, R. (2002). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short (EQ-i:S): Technical manual . Multi-Health Systems.

Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34 (2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00

Batson, C. D. (2009). These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena. In J. Decety & W. J. Ickes (Eds.), Social neuroscience series: The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 3–16) . MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262012973.003.0002

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., Lishner, D. A., & Tsang, J.-A. (2002). Empathy and altruism. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 485–498). Oxford University Press.

Bieg, M., Goetz, T., Sticca, F., Brunner, E., Becker, E., Morger, V., & Hubbard, K. (2017). Teaching methods and their impact on students’ emotions in mathematics: An experiencesampling approach. ZDM, 49 (3), 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0840-1

Borenstein, M. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis . John Wiley & Sons.

Book   Google Scholar  

Brackett, M. A., & Katulak, M. A. (2007). Emotional intelligence in the classroom: Skill-based training for teachers and students. In J. Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Applying emotional intelligence: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 1–27). Psychology Press.

Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (9), 1147–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254596

Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (4), 780–795. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.780

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (4), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

Butler, R. (2012). Striving to connect: Extending an achievement goal approach to teacher motivation to include relational goals for teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (3), 726–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028613

*Byers, D. L., Caltabiano, N., & Caltabiano, M. (2011). Teachers’ attitudes towards overt and covert bullying, and perceived efficacy to intervene. Australian Journal of Teacher Education , 36 (11), 8. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n11.1

Calkins, S. D., & Hill, A. (2009). Caregiver influences on emerging emotion regulation: Biological and environmental transactions in early development. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 229–248) . Guilford Press.

Cavell, T. (1990). Social adjustment, social performance, and social skills: A tri-component model of social competence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 19 (2), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp1902_2

*Corcoran, R. P., & Tormey, R. (2013). Does emotional intelligence predict student teachers’ performance? Teaching and Teacher Education , 35 , 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.04.008

Craig, W. M., Henderson, K., & Murphy, J. G. (2000). Prospective teachers’ attitudes toward bullying and victimization. School Psychology International, 21 (1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034300211001

*Curci, A., Lanciano, T., & Soleti, E. (2014). Emotions in the classroom: The role of teachers’ emotional intelligence ability in predicting students’ achievement. The American Journal of Psychology , 127 (4), 421–445. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.127.4.0431

Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10 , 85.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3 (2), 71–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582304267187

*Dedousis-Wallace, A., & Shute, R. (2009). Indirect bullying: Predictors of teacher intervention, and outcome of a pilot educational presentation about impact on adolescent mental health. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology , 9 , 2–17.

Downer, J. T., Stuhlman, M., Schweig, J., Martinez, J. F., & Ruzek, E. (2014). Measuring effective teacher-student interactions from a student perspective: A multi-level analysis. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35 (5-6), 722–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614564059

DuBois, D. L., & Felner, R. D. (2003). The quadripartite model of social competence: Theory and applications to clinical intervention. In M. A. Reinecke, F. M. Datillio, & A. Freeman (Eds.), Cognitive therapy with children and adolescents: A casebook for clinical practice (pp. 402–433). Guilford Press.

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 3. Goals and cognitions (pp. 139–186). Academic Press.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1990). Empathy: Conceptualization, measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 14 (2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991640

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101 (1), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91

Elliott, R., Bohart, A. C., Watson, J. C., & Murphy, D. (2018). Therapist empathy and client outcome: An updated meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55 (4), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000175

Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36 (2), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_5

Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014a). Grundschulunterricht aus Schüler-, Lehrer- und Beobachterperspektive: Zusammenhänge und Vorhersage von Lernerfolg [Teaching quality in primary school from the perspectives of students, teachers, and external observers: Relationships between perspectives and prediction of student achievement]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 28 (3), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000129

Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014b). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29 , 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001

*Fifield, A. O. (2011). College professors' perceptions of and responses to relational aggression in college students [Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University]. ProQuest.

*Franklin, M. M. (2014). Teacher impact on the academic achievement of students of poverty [Doctoral Dissertation, Trident University International]. ProQuest.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56 (3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

Frenzel, A. C., Becker-Kurz, B., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2015). Teaching this class drives me nuts! Examining the person and context specificity of teacher emotions. PLoS One, 10 (6), e0129630. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129630

*Friedman, S. (2014). Teacher emotional intelligence and the quality of their interactions with students [Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University]. ProQuest.

*Fults, J. R. (2019). Identifying teacher emotional-social competencies that predict positive & negative relationships with students [Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University]. OhioLINK. Retrieved January 7, 2021, from  https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=bgsu1555620765498101&disposition=inline

*Garner, P. W., Moses, L. K., & Waajid, B. (2013). Prospective teachers’ awareness and expression of emotions: Associations with proposed strategies for behavioral management in the classroom. Psychology in the Schools , 50 (5), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21688

*Ghanizadeh, A., & Moafian, F. (2010). The role of EFL teachers’ emotional intelligence in their success. ELT Journal , 64 (4), 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp084

*Gottesman, D. E. (2016). Preparing teachers to work with students with emotional regulation difficulties [Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York]. ProQuest.

*Hall, P. C. (2009). Potential predictors of student teaching performance: Considering emotional intelligence [Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah Graduate School]. ProQuest.

*Hammel, E. F. (2013). An investigation of teachers’ beliefs about relational aggression among girls [Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York]. ProQuest.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76 (5), 949–967. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00889.x

Hascher, T. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research approaches to assess student well-being. International Journal of Educational Research, 47 (2), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2007.11.016

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2 (3), 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953

*Heckathorn, P. W. (2013). The relation of instructor emotional intelligence with classroom climate in evening masters’ programs for adults [Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia]. ProQuest.

*Hines, M. P. (2013). Middle school teacher efficacy, concern for bullying, empathy for victims, personal experience with bullying, principal emotional intelligence toward conflict, principal behavior regarding bullying and willingness to intervene [Doctoral dissertation, Dowling College]. ProQuest.

Hojat, M., Louis, D. Z., Markham, F. W., Wender, R., Rabinowitz, C., & Gonnella, J. S. (2011). Physiciansʼ empathy and clinical outcomes for diabetic patients. Academic Medicine, 86 (3), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182086fe1

*Hu, B. Y., Chen, L., & Fan, X. (2018). Profiles of teacher-child interaction quality in preschool classrooms and teachers’ professional competence features. Educational Psychology , 38 (3), 264–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1328488

*Huang, H., Liu, Y., & Chen, Y. (2018). Preservice preschool teachers’ responses to bullying scenarios: The roles of years of study and empathy. Frontiers in Psychology , 9 , 175. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00175

Ickes, W. (2001). Measuring empathic accuracy. In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 219–241) . Taylor and Francis.

Jennings, P. A. (2015). Early childhood teachers’ well-being, mindfulness, and self-compassion in relation to classroom quality and attitudes towards challenging students. Mindfulness, 6 (4), 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0312-4

Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79 (1), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693

Jennings, P. A., Brown, J. L., Frank, J. L., Doyle, S., Oh, Y., Davis, R., Rasheed, D., DeWeese, A., DeMauro, A. A., Cham, H., & Greenberg, M. T. (2017). Impacts of the CARE for teachers program on teachers’ social and emotional competence and classroom interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109 , 1010–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000187

Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (1), 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017286

Kardos, P., Leidner, B., Pléh, C., Soltész, P., & Unoka, Z. (2017). Empathic people have more friends: Empathic abilities predict social network size and position in social network predicts empathic efforts. Social Networks, 50 (1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.01.004

Karing, C., Dörfler, T., & Artelt, C. (2013). How accurate are teacher and parent judgements of lower secondary school children’s test anxiety? Educational Psychology, 35 (8), 909–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.814200

Keller, M. M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2016). Teacher enthusiasm: Reviewing and redefining a complex construct. Educational Psychology Review, 28 (4), 743–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9354-y

*Khodadady, E. (2012). Emotional intelligence and its relationship with English teaching effectiveness. Theory and Practice in Language Studies , 2 (10), 2061–2072. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.10.2061-2072

Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras Study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In J. Tomáš & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). Waxmann.

Klingbeil, D. A., & Renshaw, T. L. (2018). Mindfulness-based interventions for teachers: A meta-analysis of the emerging evidence base. School Psychology Quarterly, 33 (4), 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000291

Klusmann, U., Richter, D., & Lüdtke, O. (2016). Teachers’ emotional exhaustion is negatively related to students’ achievement: Evidence from a large-scale assessment study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8) , 1193–1203. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000125

Knobloch Coetzee, S., & Klopper, H. C. (2010). Compassion fatigue within nursing practice: A concept analysis. Nursing & Health Sciences, 12 (2), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2010.00526.x

Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environments Research, 9 (3), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-006-9015-7

Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (3), 805–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583

Langenbach, M., & Aagaard, L. (1990). A factor analytic study of the Adult Classroom Environment Scale. Adult Education Quarterly, 40 (2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848190040002003

*Latchaw, J. (2017). Online postsecondary student perception of instructor emotional intelligence and student performance: A quantitative correlational study  (Publication No. 10100864) [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Lee, M., Pekrun, R., Taxer, J. L., Schutz, P. A., Vogl, E., & Xie, X. (2016). Teachers’ emotions and emotion management: Integrating emotion regulation theory with emotional labor research. Social Psychology of Education, 19 (4), 843–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-016-9359-5

MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional intelligence: Theory and data. Emotion, 8 (4), 540–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012746

Martin, K. M., & Huebner, E. S. (2007). Peer victimization and prosocial experiences and emotional well-being of middle school students. Psychology in the Schools, 44 (2), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20216

Marx, A. K. G., Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., Reck, C., & Müller, M. (2019, August). Teachers’ and learners’ emotional experiences in class: Using automated facial action coding . Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) annual conference.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 , 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–31) . Basic Books.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT): User’s manual . Multi-Health Systems.

Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59 , 507–536. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646

*Metaxas, M. J. (2018). Teachers’ emotional intelligence as a predisposition for discrimination against students with severe emotional and behavioural disorders  [Doctoral dissertation, Federation University Australia]. CORE. Retrieved January 8, 2021,  https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/213002709.pdf

Mitsopoulou, E., & Giovazolias, T. (2015). Personality traits, empathy and bullying behavior: A meta-analytic approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21 , 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.007

Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., & Daniels, L. M. (2010). What to do when feeling bored? Learning and Individual Differences, 20 (6), 626–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.004

Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2009). Complementary roles of care and behavioral control in classroom management: The self-determination theory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34 (3), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.03.001

*Nizielski, S., Hallum, S., Lopes, P. N., & Schutz, A. (2012). Attention to student needs mediates the relationship between teacher emotional intelligence and student misconduct in the classroom. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment , 30 (4), 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282912449439

O’Connor, K. E. (2008). “You choose to care”: Teachers, emotions and professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (1), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.008

*O’Shea, M. (2019). The role of teacher emotional intelligence in determining relationship quality with students [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania]. ProQuest.

*Okonofua, J. A., Paunesku, D., & Walton, G. M. (2016). Brief intervention to encourage empathic discipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 113 (19), 5221–5226. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523698113

Olderbak, S., & Wilhelm, O. (2020). Overarching principles for the organization of socioemotional constructs. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29 (1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419884317

Olderbak, S., Sassenrath, C., Keller, J., & Wilhelm, O. (2014). An emotion-differentiated perspective on empathy with the emotion specific empathy questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 , 653. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00653

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ , 372 , n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Parsons, S. A., Vaughn, M., Scales, R. Q., Gallagher, M. A., Parsons, A. W., Davis, S. G., Pierczynski, M., & Allen, M. (2018). Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 88 (2), 205–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317743198

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37 (2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioural validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17 (1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.466

*Petsos, K., & Gorizidis, G. (2019). The role of PE teachers’ emotional intelligence in their interpersonal behaviors with their students. Journal of Classroom Interaction , 54 (1), 26–39.

Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers . American Psychological Association.

Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38 (2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09332374

Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Mintz, S. (2012). Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS): Secondary Manual . Teachstone.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

*Polat, S., & Ulusoy-Oztan, Y. (2009). Relationship between emotional intelligence of primary school fourth and fifth grade students and their instructors [Paper presentation] . Second European Network for Socio-Emotional Competence in Children Conference.

*Poulou, M. S. (2017). The relation of teachers’ emotional intelligence and students’ social skills to students’ emotional and behavioral difficulties: A study of preschool teachers’ perceptions. Early Education and Development , 28 (8), 996–1010. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1320890

*Poulou, M. S., Bassett, H. H., & Denham, S. A. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions of emotional intelligence and social-emotional learning: Students’ emotional and behavioral difficulties in U.S. and Greek preschool classrooms. Journal of Research in Childhood Education , 32 (3), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2018.1464980

Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x02000018

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Hamre, B. K. (2010). The role of psychological and developmental science in efforts to improve teacher quality. Teachers College Record, 112 , 2988–3023.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Storm, M. D., Sawyer, B. E., Pianta, R. C., & LaParo, K. M. (2006). The Teacher Belief Q-Sort: A measure of teachers' priorities in relation to disciplinary practices, teaching practices, and beliefs about children. Journal of School Psychology, 44 (2), 141–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.01.003

Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships: As developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Study 1, Volume 3: Formulations of the person and the social context (pp. 184–256). McGraw-Hill.

Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F. J., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2017). Affective teacher–student relationships and students' engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review, 46 (3), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3

Rose-Krasnor, L. (1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical review. Social Development, 6 (1), 111–135.

Ruzek, E. A., Hafen, C. A., Allen, J. P., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Pianta, R. C. (2016). How teacher emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of perceived peer relatedness, autonomy support, and competence. Learning and Instruction, 42 , 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.004

Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, and health (pp. 125–154). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10182-006

Scherer, K. R. (1984). On the nature and function of emotion: A component process approach. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 293–318). Psychology Press.

Scherer, R., Nilsen, T., & Jansen, M. (2016). Evaluating individual students’ perceptions of instructional quality: An investigation of their factor structure, measurement invariance, and relations to educational outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00110

Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143 (6), 565–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000098

Sened, H., Lavidor, M., Lazarus, G., Bar-Kalifa, E., Rafaeli, E., & Ickes, W. (2017). Empathic accuracy and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology, 31 (6), 742–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000320

Shen, B., McCaughtry, N., Martin, J., Garn, A., Kulik, N., & Fahlman, M. (2015). The relationship between teacher burnout and student motivation. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (4), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12089

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 , 4–14.

*Singh, J. (2014). The relationship between public middle school teachers’ reports of their empathy and their reports of their likelihood of intervening in a bullying situation: An action research study [Doctoral dissertation, University of Hartford]. ProQuest.

Slavin, R., & Smith, D. (2009). The relationship between sample sizes and effect sizes in systematic reviews in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31 (4), 500–506. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373709352369

Śmieja, M., Orzechowski, J., & Stolarski, M. S. (2014). TIE: An ability test of emotional intelligence. PLoS One, 9 (7), e103484. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103484

Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.) SAGE.

*Sokol, N., Bussey, K., & Rapee, R. M. (2016). The impact of victims’ responses on teacher reactions to bullying. Teaching and Teacher Education , 55 , 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.002

Spinath, B. (2005). Akkuratheit der Einschätzung von Schülermerkmalen durch Lehrer und das Konstrukt der diagnostischen Kompetenz [Accuracy of teacher judgments on student characteristics and the construct of diagnostic competence]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 19 , 85–95.

*Swartz, R. A., & McElwain, N. L. (2012). Preservice teachers’ emotion-related regulation and cognition: Associations with teachers’ responses to children’s emotions in early childhood classrooms. Early Education and Development , 202–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2012.619392

*Tettegah, S. (2007). Pre-service teachers, victim empathy, and problem solving using animated narrative vignettes. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning , 5 , 41–68.

Thalheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2002). How to calculate effect sizes from published research: A simplified methodology . Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253642160_How_to_calculate_effect_sizes_from_published_research_A_simplified_methodology

Trauernicht, M., Oppermann, E., Klusmann, U., & Anders, Y. (2021). Burnout undermines empathising: Do induced burnout symptoms impair cognitive and affective empathy? Cognition & Emotion, 35 (1), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2020.1806041

*Underwood, S. S. (2010). Teacher empathy and its impact on bullying in schools [Doctoral dissertation, Tennessee State University]. ProQuest.

Vachon, D. D., Lynam, D. R., & Johnson, J. A. (2014). The (non)relation between empathy and aggression: Surprising results from a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140 (3), 751–773. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035236

Van der Schalk, J., Hawk, S. T., Fischer, A. H., & Doosje, B. (2011). Moving faces, looking places: Validation of the Amsterdam Dynamic Facial Expression Set (ADFES). Emotion, 11 (4), 907–920. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023853

*VanZoeren, S. A. (2015). The influence of individual and perceived organizational characteristics on teacher interventions in bullying situations [Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University]. ProQuest.

Voss, T., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2011). Assessing teacher candidates’ general pedagogical/psychological knowledge: Test construction and validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (4), 952–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025125

Wagner, W., Göllner, R., Werth, S., Voss, T., Schmitz, B., & Trautwein, U. (2016). Student and teacher ratings of instructional quality: Consistency of ratings over time, agreement, and predictive power. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108 (5), 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000075

Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development, 83 (3), 877–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01745.x

Warren, C. A. (2015). Scale of teacher empathy for African American males (S-TEAAM): Measuring teacher conceptions and the application of empathy in multicultural classroom settings. Journal of Negro Education, 84 , 154–174. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.84.2.0154

Watt, H. M. G., Butler, R., & Richardson, P. W. (2021). Antecedents and consequences of teachers’ goal profiles in Australia and Israel. Learning and Instruction, 80 (5), 101491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101491

Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Hogrefe & Huber.

Weisz, E., Ong, D. C., Carlson, R. W., & Zaki, J. (2020). Building empathy through motivation-based interventions. Emotion . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000929

*Wen, W. (2020). Influence of emotional intelligence on the performance of college law teachers. Revista Argentina De Clínica Psicológica , 29 (1), 499–505.

Wispé, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a concept, a word is needed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (2), 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.314

Wong, C.-S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13 , 243–274.

*Wu, Y., Lian, K., Hong, P., Liu, S., Lin, R.-M., & Lian, R. (2019). Teachers’ emotional intelligence and self-efficacy: Mediating role of teaching performance. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal , 47 (3), 1–10.

Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., & Hooymayers, H. (1993). Comparison of teachers’ and students’ perceptions of interpersonal teacher behavior. In T. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education (pp. 64–80). Falmer Press.

Yildirim, S. (2012). Teacher support, motivation, learning strategy use, and achievement: A multilevel mediation model. Journal of Experimental Education, 80 (2), 150–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2011.596855

*Yoon, J. S. (2004). Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education and Treatment of Children , 27 (1), 37–45.

Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? (pp. 3–22). Teachers College Press.

*Zinsser, K. M., Denham, S. A., Curby, T. W., & Shewark, E. A. (2015). “Practice what you preach”: Teachers’ perceptions of emotional competence and emotionally supportive classroom practices. Early Education and Development , 26 (7), 899–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.1009320

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Research and Educational Psychology, IPN – Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Olshausenstr. 62, 24118, Kiel, Germany

Karen Aldrup, Bastian Carstensen & Uta Klusmann

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen Aldrup .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Aldrup, K., Carstensen, B. & Klusmann, U. Is Empathy the Key to Effective Teaching? A Systematic Review of Its Association with Teacher-Student Interactions and Student Outcomes. Educ Psychol Rev 34 , 1177–1216 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09649-y

Download citation

Accepted : 03 November 2021

Published : 10 March 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09649-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Emotional intelligence
• Social-emotional competence
• Teacher-student interaction
• Student development
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• < Previous

Home > Grad School > Doctoral Dissertations > AAI9542351

Doctoral Dissertations

Understanding the power of empathy: a qualitative study.

Julia Lucille Orza , University of Connecticut

Date of Completion

January 1995

Education, Guidance and Counseling|Education, Educational Psychology

Much of the counseling literature identifies the presence of empathy as crucial in creating therapeutic change. However, counselor education has struggled as to what aspects of empathy to develop or focus upon in training, primarily because of existing inconsistencies surrounding definition, development and measurement. An emphasis on quantitative, linear, and reductionistic research methods in counseling psychology has rendered the study of empathy incomplete. Most scales and techniques for training focus on the static, external, and observable manifestations of empathy that are then translated into communication behaviors and skills. This study explored the more internal, contextual, and multidimensional aspects of empathy through the use of qualitative methods.^ The data for this investigation were obtained through a national survey of counselor educators, focus groups and individual interviews with counselors with varying levels of experience, and researcher participant observation in two counseling relationships. Data were analyzed for salient categories and themes relating to the study's research questions that would contribute to a better understanding of the elusive concept of empathy. The results were discussed in terms of implications for training methods in counselor education.^ The results indicate that a Rogerian definition of empathy is not only a consistent way of conceptualizing empathy, but is also useful in describing and operationalizing the existential and aesthetic aspects of empathy that were identified as neglected in more traditional training programs. Also, the personal development of the trainee was consistently identified as contributing most to empathic ability. The results suggest that personal characteristics of the trainee, in conjunction with information dissemination and skills training, should have greater emphasis in counselor training programs to encourage intra-personal, inter-personal and social development. Specific exercises and ideas for counselor educators to increase trainees' empathy levels were discussed. Finally, it was determined that those responsible for training counselors to become effective change agents should consider the personal characteristics and innate abilities of those wishing to enter a counselor education program, thus creating a need for further research on effective selection procedures. ^

Recommended Citation

Orza, Julia Lucille, "Understanding the power of empathy: A qualitative study" (1995). Doctoral Dissertations . AAI9542351. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI9542351

Since February 16, 2006

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Using and Citing
• UConn Library
• Open Access Author Fund
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• Grad School Website

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Trait Empathy as a Predictor of Individual Differences in Perceived Loneliness 1, 2

Janelle n. beadle.

Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of Iowa

Vanessa Brown

Department of Psychology, St. Olaf College

Brian Keady

Department of Psychology, University of Iowa

Daniel Tranel

Departments of Neurology and Psychology and Neuroscience Program, University of Iowa

Sergio Paradiso

Department of Psychiatry and Neuroscience Program, University of Iowa

Loneliness has been shown to be inversely correlated with empathy in younger adults. The present study extends previous research by investigating the association between empathy and loneliness across the adult lifespan and examining the role of relevant demographic and personality factors. 110 community-dwelling adults (18 to 81 years old) completed the UCLA Loneliness Scale and the Empathy Quotient. Empathy scores were inversely associated with rated loneliness and predicted 8.7% of variance in loneliness scores after accounting for sex, age, relationship status, education, and neuroticism. The Social Skills factor of the Empathy Quotient was the strongest predictor of the association between empathy and loneliness. Previous research is extended by the finding that rated loneliness was inversely associated with empathy scores across the adult lifespan. Underlying this relationship may be negative perceptions of personal social proclivity as a function of difficulty understanding the mental states of others and high trait neuroticism.

Loneliness and objectively being alone are only partly related. Loneliness is the psychological suffering associated with perception of social isolation present in up to 20% of the population ( Davis & Smith, 1998 ). Feeling lonely is related to a variety of health issues and illnesses including cardiovascular and sleep disorders, depression, and Alzheimer’s disease ( Cacioppo, Hawkley, Berntson, Ernst, Gibbs, Stickgold et al. , 2002 ; Paul, Ayis, & Ebrahim, 2006 ; Hawkley, Masi, Berry, & Cacioppo, 2006 ; Wilson, Krueger, Arnold, Schneider, Kelly, Barnes, et al. , 2007 ).

The psychological mechanisms underlying the experience of loneliness are only partially understood. Current research suggests that the roots of loneliness may lie in the inaccurate perception of one’s own social ability potentially leading to dissociation between perceived and objective social skills. Lonely individuals show high rates of social anxiety and neuroticism, and perceive their social interactions to be negative ( Segrin & Kinney, 1995 ; Russell, 1996 ). They report their relationships to be of poor quality whether expressed as opinions about room- and dorm-mates ( Cacioppo, Ernst, Burleson, McClintock, Malarkey, Hawkley, et al. , 2000 ) or satisfaction in romantic relationships ( Flora & Segrin, 2000 ). Yet these critical perceptions may be unwarranted. During unstructured conversations in which participants were unaware of being observed and videotaped, socially anxious people did not display poor social skills (as rated by the investigators) or differences in the extent of their behavioral involvement in the conversation (e.g., gaze and gesture frequency; Segrin & Kinney, 1995 ).

It is not clear why lonely people perceive their social abilities to be poor when their social skills are rated by others as normal. One hypothesis is that lonely people are less accurate in perceiving thoughts and feelings of others, a capacity often referred to as empathy ( Davis, 1979 ). Hence, a lonely person may not accurately detect a partner’s appreciation of their social interaction. Since lonely people often show high neuroticism and social anxiety ( Segrin & Kinney, 1995 ; Russell, 1996 ), they may conclude that the quality of the social interaction is poor.

In the present study, clarifying the psychological underpinnings of loneliness by investigating its association with empathic ability was a general focus. Empathy is a multidimensional construct that includes one’s aptitude for understanding the intentions and feelings of others (cognitive empathy; Kerr & Speroff, 1954 ) as well as vicariously sharing their emotional experiences (emotional empathy; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972 ; Davis, 1983 ).

Previous researchers have reported differences in loneliness and empathy as a function of sex, age, relationship status, neuroticism, and education ( Borys & Perlman, 1985 ; Russell, 1996 ; Schieman & Van Gundy, 2000 ; Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003 ; Bailey, Henry, & Von Hippel, 2008 ). Sex differences in loneliness are typically found when measured explicitly using items that include the term loneliness, and in this case women generally report higher loneliness scores than men ( Borys & Perlman, 1985 ; Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003 ). When loneliness is assessed indirectly on a multi-item questionnaire (e.g., the UCLA Loneliness Scale) by asking the individual to report feelings of relational closeness, two findings have emerged: typically there are no statistically significant differences between the sexes ( Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003 ), but in some studies men reported more loneliness than women ( Russell, 1996 ). One interpretation of these seemingly disparate findings is that for women it is more socially acceptable to admit loneliness, so this is captured by explicit measurement while the loneliness experienced by men may be better measured indirectly. Because generally women score higher on self-report empathy scales, sex should be considered when examining associations between loneliness and empathy ( Davis, 1979 ; Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004 ).

Older adults report slightly more loneliness than younger adults, this difference being larger in those with mean age ≥ 80 years ( Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003 ). A small number of studies report reduced empathy in later life, but further research is needed for definitive evidence ( Schieman & Van Gundy, 2000 ; Bailey, Henry, & Von Hippel, 2008 ). Higher loneliness is generally reported by single persons than those in relationships ( Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003 ) and lonely people have higher ratings of neuroticism than people who are not lonely ( Stephan, et al ., 1988 ; Russell, 1996 ). Whereas older adults as a group have lower education than younger adults ( Smith, 1997 ), higher education has been shown to potentially “preserve” empathy among older people ( Schieman & Van Gundy, 2000 ).

In previous studies of the association between empathy and loneliness, researchers have primarily included younger adults and children, and loneliness has typically not been assessed by the standard measure of loneliness, the UCLA loneliness scale ( Davis, 1983 ; Kalliopuska, 1986 ; Margalit & Ronen, 1993 ; Bailey, et al ., 2008 ; Shaver & Brennan, 1991 ; Russell, 1996 ). The association between loneliness and empathy has been shown in undergraduate students ( Davis, 1983 ; Kalliopuska, 1986 ) and high school children with mental retardation ( Margalit & Ronen, 1993 ). The only study that has assessed this association in older adults (i.e., 65 to 87 years) included a younger adult sample, but did not include a lifespan sample, thus those in the middle range of adulthood were not included ( Bailey, et al ., 2008 ). Furthermore, in the majority of these studies loneliness was not assessed using the UCLA loneliness scale ( Margalit & Ronen, 1993 ; Bailey, et al ., 2008 ; Kalliopuska, 1986 ) which is considered to be the standard measure of loneliness in the field ( Shaver & Brennan, 1991 ). Instead, in previous studies loneliness was measured through open-ended questions such as, “What is loneliness?” ( Kalliopuska, 1986 ), or through questionnaires designed to measure a construct related to loneliness but not loneliness specifically (e.g., social participation; Bailey, et al ., 2008 ). Although Davis (1983) measured loneliness using the UCLA Loneliness Scale, an earlier version of the scale was used ( Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980 ) which has since been revised to Version 3 to improve item wordings ( Russell, 1996 ).

The current study extends previous research by measuring the association between empathy and loneliness in adults ranging across the adult lifespan (i.e. early, middle, and late adulthood) and using a standard measure of loneliness, the UCLA Loneliness Scale Version 3. Sex, age, relationship status, education, and neuroticism were accounted for to isolate the specific association between the two variables of interest. It was hypothesized that empathy would be inversely associated with loneliness. It was also hypothesized that empathy would explain differences in loneliness after accounting for sex, age, relationship status, education, and neuroticism.

Participants ( N =110, 61 women, 92.7% Euro-American) were community-dwelling adults and university students who responded to advertising from a daily hospital newsletter typically read by hospital employees, university students, patients, and visitors. The study was described as measuring cognitive function through behavioral tasks and questionnaires. Participants in this study were part of a larger research study on empathy and social outcome in healthy adults and patients with brain damage ( Beadle, 2009 ). Ages ranged from 18 to 81 years ( M = 35.6, SD =18.5). Participants were in a relationship or married (60%) or single (including widowed, 40%). Mean years of education was 15.3 ( SD =2.5).

Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants before completing self-report questionnaires alone in an experimental testing room. A Research Assistant checked in with each participant every 25 minutes to answer any questions that may have come up while the participant was completing the questionnaires. The study was conducted in accordance with Institutional and Federal Human Subjects regulations.

Participants were assessed using the UCLA Loneliness Scale Version 3 ( Russell, 1996 ), the Empathy Quotient (EQ; Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004 ), and the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992 ).

UCLA Loneliness Scale

The UCLA Loneliness Scale measures subjective perception of loneliness or social isolation ( Russell, 1996 ). The UCLA Loneliness scale consists of 20 items in which individuals respond to the statements by indicating on a 4-point scale whether they 1: Never, 2: Rarely, 3: Sometimes, or 4: Always feel in the manner listed in the statement. One example of an item on the scale is, “How often do you feel that there is no one you can turn to?” Some items are reverse scored. To calculate a total score, items are summed. The possible range of scores is 20 to 80, with higher scores indicating greater loneliness. This scale has shown high internal consistency (ranging from α=.89 to .94) and test-retest reliability (over one year, r =.73; Russell, 1996 ). Students have been reported to score between 20 and 74 ( N =487, M =40.08, SD =9.50; Russell, 1996 ) and the elderly between 20 and 59 ( N =284, M =31.51, SD =6.92; Russell, 1996 ).

Empathy Quotient

The Empathy Quotient assesses perceptions about one’s ability to empathize, or adopt the mental perspective of others (example item: “I find it easy to put myself in somebody else’s shoes”; Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004 ). Factor analysis showed that items load onto three main factors (i.e., Cognitive Empathy, Emotional Reactivity, and Social Skills; Lawrence, Shaw, Baker, Baron-Cohen, & David, 2004 ). Empathy scores range from 0 to 80, with higher scores indicating greater empathy. This questionnaire has high internal consistency (α=.85) and test-retest reliability (one year, r =.97; Muncer & Ling, 2006 ). Reported means on this scale have ranged from 42 to 46 in younger and older adults (younger adults: Muncer, N =362, M =42.5, SD =10.8; Lawrence, Study 1: N =53, M =46.2, SD =10.6; older adults: Bailey, N =49, M =46, SD =15.7; Lawrence, et al., 2004 ; Muncer & Ling, 2006 ; Bailey, et al., 2008 ).

NEO–FFI Neuroticism

Because loneliness has been associated with neuroticism ( Russell, 1996 ), this personality facet was measured using the NEO–FFI, a well-established measure of personality ( Costa & McCrae, 1992 ). This questionnaire is highly reliable in its measurement of neuroticism, as measured by internal consistency (α=.86) and test-retest reliability (.87; Costa & McCrae, 1992 ).

To examine the association between loneliness, demographic, and personality factors in the present sample which previous studies have shown to be correlated with loneliness (i.e. sex, age, education, relationship status, and neuroticism) Pearson’s product moment correlations were computed. Continuous variables consisted of loneliness, age, education, and neuroticism while dichotomous variables included sex and relationship status. The category ‘in a relationship’ included individuals in a committed relationship or married, and the category ‘single’ included single, widowed, or divorced individuals. The primary hypothesis that loneliness is indirectly associated with empathy was examined using a Pearson’s product moment correlation. To investigate the extent to which empathy explains unique variation in loneliness, a multiple regression model was computed using loneliness as the dependent variable and age, sex, education, relationship status, Neuroticism, and Empathy as predictors. To further understand how different aspects of empathy correlate with loneliness, the association between each Empathy Quotient factor (i.e., Cognitive Empathy, Emotional Reactivity, and Social Skills) and loneliness was examined through Pearson’s product moment correlations. To examine which empathy factor explained the most unique variance in loneliness, a multiple regression model was conducted using loneliness as an outcome variable and age, sex, education, relationship status, Neuroticism, Cognitive Empathy, Emotional Reactivity, and Social Skills as predictors.

Participants scored between 20 to 65 on the UCLA Loneliness Scale and 17 to 73 on the Empathy Quotient (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). Loneliness showed a significant direct association with scores on Neuroticism ( Table 1 ). Empathy was significantly associated with sex, with women reporting higher Empathy ( Table 1 ). No other association between Empathy or Loneliness scores and personality or demographic variables reached statistical significance.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables

Association of Loneliness with Empathy

Empathy was indirectly correlated with Loneliness ( Table 1 ). A multiple regression analysis investigating Loneliness as a function of personality and demographic variables (age, sex, education, relationship status, Neuroticism, and Empathy) explained 46% of the variance in Loneliness ( Table 2 ). Empathy uniquely explained 8.7% of the variance in Loneliness after controlling for other predictor variables, including Neuroticism which explained 25.2% of the variance in Loneliness. This analysis showed that relationship status explained a statistically significant amount of variance in Loneliness, but in the opposite direction from some previous studies, as persons in a relationship reported more loneliness than single persons (see Table 2 ).

Regression Model of Empathy on Loneliness

Note.—R 2 = .46 ( p < .001).

Association of Loneliness with Empathy Quotient Factors

The association between each factor of the Empathy Quotient (i.e., Cognitive Empathy, Emotional Reactivity, and Social Skills) and Loneliness was examined. Cognitive Empathy, Emotional Reactivity, and Social Skills were all statistically significantly associated with ratings on the UCLA Loneliness Scale ( Table 3 ). Next a multiple regression model was used to assess which empathic factor explained more unique variance in Loneliness scores. The overall model explained 47.6% of the variance ( F 8,109 = 11.45, p <.001). Of the three empathy factors, Social Skills was the strongest predictor of loneliness in comparison to Emotional Reactivity, and Cognitive Empathy ( Table 4 ).

Correlations Among Empathy Quotient Factors and Loneliness

Regression Model of Empathy Quotient Factors on Loneliness

Note.—R 2 = .48, p < .001.

Extending previous literature primarily investigating younger adult populations, the present study demonstrated that empathy is indirectly related to loneliness across the adult lifespan. In particular, the Social Skills factor of the Empathy scale was the strongest predictor of Loneliness scores, which corroborates previous studies showing that lonely people perceive their social skills to be poor ( Segrin & Kinney, 1995 ; Russell, 1996 ). One caveat in the interpretation of the present study’s findings is that empathy was measured using a self-report questionnaire, which does not reflect whether participants who perceive themselves to have low empathy also exhibit low empathy behaviorally. However, many self-report measures of empathy have high validity and reliability ( Davis, 1979 ; Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004 ; Lawrence, et al. , 2004 ), and the Empathy Quotient in particular has been associated with a valid behavioral measure of empathy (the Eyes Task; Lawrence, et al., 2004 ). Further, older adults’ perceptions of the self show similar predictive value of health outcomes relative to objective measures ( Blazer, 2008 ). Nevertheless, in future studies researchers should explicitly investigate the association between behavioral and self-report measures of empathy and loneliness across the adult lifespan to establish convergent validity as well as measure other distinct personality constructs to assess discriminant validity ( Campbell & Fiske, 1959 ).

Previous research has shown a robust association between loneliness and neuroticism ( Stephan, et al. , 1988 ; Russell, 1996 ). The current study corroborated previous literature showing that lonely people also have high ratings of neuroticism across the lifespan. Relationship status has also been associated with loneliness ( Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003 ). A meta-analysis investigating loneliness in middle-age and older adults showed that people who are single are more likely to be lonely than people who are married ( Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003 ). Contrary to previous studies, in the present study, participants in a relationship had a higher mean score on the UCLA Loneliness Scale than the group of singles. One potential explanation is that this study did not specifically investigate participants’ relationship histories. In fact, a previous study showed that single older adults who have had a high number of failed relationships tended to have greater current loneliness scores ( Peters & Liefbroer, 1997 ). Another possibility could be that the quality of the relationships in the current sample may differ from previous studies. It has been shown that married individuals may experience loneliness as a function of the relationship quality, for example feelings of ‘being misunderstood’ or ‘not needed,’ or external causes such as ‘travel[ing] often’ have been documented as potential reasons for feeling lonely ( Tornstam, 1992 ). Further, Gottman has theorized that loneliness is one of the later steps of a failing longer term relationship or marriage ( Gottman, 1993 ), and older adults are more likely to be involved in a long term relationship.

Previous research has yielded unclear findings about the association between sex and loneliness ( Borys & Perlman, 1985 ), and in the present study no effect of sex on loneliness was found. Studies in which the term loneliness was explicitly used have found that women report higher scores on loneliness than men ( Borys & Perlman, 1985 ). In contrast, indirect measurement of loneliness through a series of items describing the experience of loneliness without explicitly mentioning the term (e.g., the UCLA Loneliness Scale) often do not find sex differences. When differences are reported, these include higher ratings of loneliness for undergraduate men than undergraduate women, but no sex differences were found for elderly individuals ( Borys & Perlman, 1985 ; Russell, 1996 ). Because the present study included a sample that ranges across most of the adult lifespan (18 to 81 years), sex effects found in only one age group (young adults), may not be evident using the analytic techniques applied in the current study. Future studies should examine effects of the interaction between sex and age on loneliness.

The present study did not find an effect of age on loneliness. Although it has been reported that older age is associated with greater loneliness ( de Jong Gierveld & van Tilburg, 1999 ; Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003 ), there is also evidence for either an age-related decrease or no effect of older age on loneliness. A meta-analysis of 185 studies examining loneliness in middle-age and older adults ( M age ≥ 50 yr.) found a small age-related effect on loneliness scores, with the oldest age group ( M age ≥ 81 yr.) reporting the highest scores on loneliness ( Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003 ). The opposite result was found for a large sample of undergraduate students, nurses, teachers, and elderly ( N =1,416) in which the elderly group (age ≥66 years) reported lower scores on perceived loneliness than students on the UCLA Loneliness Scale ( Russell, 1996 ) which was not included in the meta-analysis by Pinquart and Sörensen (2003) . Hence, previous research suggests that the association of age with loneliness is small and may depend on the characteristics of the sample. Further, the largest effect of age on loneliness has been documented for adults older than 80 years of age ( Pinquart & Sorenson, 2003 ). This age bracket was not thoroughly sampled in the current study, as the oldest participant was 81 years of age. It is also plausible that severely lonely people did not respond to advertisements for the study because these persons may not typically seek out social interactions (including participating in research studies).

In conclusion, in the present study participants of ages across the adult lifespan who reported low scores on Empathy also had higher UCLA Loneliness Scale scores. This extends previous studies that have focused on the younger adult population ( Davis, 1983 ; Kalliopuska, 1986 ; Bailey, et al. , 2008 ). Participants with poor empathy have difficulty reading the emotions and thoughts of others ( Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004 ) and thus may be unable to accurately detect others’ emotional responses during their social interactions. If lonely people are not able to perceive the emotional reactions of others, they may rely on their personal impressions of their social skills. Previous studies have shown that a lonely person’s impression of their social skills may have a negative bias which is influenced by high neuroticism ( Stephan, et al. , 1988 ; Russell, 1996 ). Thus high neuroticism may be associated with negative impressions of personal social aptitude; when combined with a poor ability to understand the mental states of others, this may lead to higher loneliness. This view is supported by the finding that persons with high Loneliness scores in the present sample had high scores on Neuroticism and low scores on Empathy and Social Skills measures. Thus poor empathy, high neuroticism, and negative impressions of personal social skills may serve as potential mechanisms for loneliness in adults of various ages across the lifespan.

Contributor Information

Janelle N. Beadle, Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of Iowa.

Vanessa Brown, Department of Psychology, St. Olaf College.

Brian Keady, Department of Psychology, University of Iowa.

Daniel Tranel, Departments of Neurology and Psychology and Neuroscience Program, University of Iowa.

Sergio Paradiso, Department of Psychiatry and Neuroscience Program, University of Iowa.

• Bailey PE, Henry JD, Von Hippel W. Empathy and social functioning in late adulthood. Aging & Mental Health. 2008; 12 :499–503. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S. The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2004; 34 :163–175. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beadle JN. PhD dissertation. Univer. of Iowa; 2009. The neuroanatomical basis of empathy: is empathy impaired following damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex? Retrieved at http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/781 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Blazer DG. How do you feel about …? Health outcomes in late life and self-perceptions of health and well-being. The Gerontologist. 2008; 48 :415–422. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borys S, Perlman D. Gender differences in loneliness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1985; 11 :63–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cacioppo JT, Ernst JM, Burleson MH, McClintock MK, Malarkey WB, Hawkley LC, Kowalewski RB, Paulsen A, Hobson JA, Hugdahl K, Spiegel D, Bernston GG. Lonely traits and concomitant physiological processes: the MacArthur social neuroscience studies. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2000; 35 :143–154. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cacioppo JT, Hawkley LC, Berntson GG, Ernst JM, Gibbs AC, Stickgold R, Hobson JA. Do lonely days invade the nights? Potential social modulation of sleep efficiency. Psychological Science. 2002; 13 :384–387. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin. 1959; 56 :81–105. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa PT, McCrae RR. Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five Factor Inventory: professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis MH. Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol. 40. Univer. of Texas; Austin: 1979. Individual differences in empathy: a multidimensional approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation; p. 3480.p. 7928276. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis MH. Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983; 44 :113–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis JA, Smith TW. General social surveys, 1972–1998: cumulative codebook. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• de Jong Gierveld J, van Tilburg T. Living arrangements of older adults in The Netherlands and Italy: coresidence values and behavior and their consequences for loneliness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology. 1999; 14 :1–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flora J, Segrin C. Relationship development in dating couples: implications for relational satisfaction and loneliness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2000; 17 :811–825. [ Google Scholar ]
• Golan O, Baron-Cohen S. Systemizing empathy: teaching adults with Asperger Syndrome or High-Functioning Autism to recognize complex emotions using interactive multimedia. Development and Psychopathology. 2006; 18 :591–617. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman JM. A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychology. 1993; 7 :57–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hawkley LC, Masi CM, Berry JD, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness is a unique predictor of age-related differences in systolic blood pressure. Psychology and Aging. 2006; 21 :152–164. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalliopuska M. Empathy and the experiencing of loneliness. Psychological Reports. 1986; 59 :1052–1054. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kerr WA, Speroff BG. Validation and evaluation of the empathy test. Journal of General Psychology. 1954; 50 :369–376. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawrence EJ, Shaw P, Baker D, Baron-Cohen S, David AS. Measuring empathy: reliability and validity of the empathy quotient. Psychological Medicine. 2004; 34 :911–919. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Margalit M, Ronen T. Loneliness and social competence among preadolescents and adolescents with mild mental retardation. Mental Handicap Research. 1993; 6 :97–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mehrabian A, Epstein N. A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality. 1972; 40 :525–543. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muncer SJ, Ling J. Psychometric analysis of the Empathy Quotient (EQ) scale. Personality and Individual Differences. 2006; 40 :1111–1119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul C, Ayis S, Ebrahim S. Psychological distress, loneliness, and disability in old age. Psychology, Health & Medicine. 2006; 11 :221–232. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters A, Liefbroer AC. Beyond marital status: partner history and well-being in old age. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1997; 59 :687–699. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinquart M, Sörensen S. Risk factors for loneliness in adulthood and old age-a meta-analysis. In: Shohov SP, editor. Advances in psychology research. Vol. 19. Huntington, NY: Nova Science; 2003. pp. 111–143. [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell DW, Peplau LA, Cutrona CE. The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1980; 39 :472–480. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell DW. UCLA Loneliness Scale (version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1996; 66 :20–40. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schieman S, Van Gundy K. The personal and social links between age and self-reported empathy. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2000; 63 :152–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• Segrin C, Kinney T. Social skills deficits among the socially anxious: rejection from others and loneliness. Motivation and Emotion. 1995; 19 :1–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shaver PR, Brennan KA. Measures of depression and loneliness. In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS, editors. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Vol. 1. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1991. pp. 195–290. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith TW. GSS Methology Report. 90. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center; 1997. Examining the relationship between educational attainment, age/cohort, and dependent variables. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stephan E, Fath M, Lamm H. Loneliness as related to various personality and environmental measures: research with the German adaptation of the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Social Behavior and Personality. 1988; 16 :169–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tornstam L. Loneliness in marriage. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships. 1992; 9 :197–217. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson RS, Krueger KR, Arnold SE, Schneider JA, Kelly JF, Barnes LL, Tang Y, Bennett DA. Loneliness and risk of Alzheimer disease. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2007; 64 :234–240. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• < Previous

Home > INDEPENDENTSTUDY > 9190

Senior Independent Study Theses

The effects of children's literature on cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and prosocial motivation.

Cobi Warstler , The College of Wooster Follow

We have all heard the phrase “put yourself in someone else’s shoes” more times than we can count throughout our lifetime. However, what does this actually mean? Empathy is a trait that has become an important topic of interest recently, especially in the lives of children. Of course, empathy is a trait that everyone possesses to one extent or another, but how exactly is it developed? Despite there being studies showing that empathy does have a small genetic component, there are also differences in empathy among individuals that could be related to non-genetic, environmental factors as well, that are very important to consider. This study sets out to investigate some of the key factors that influence the development of empathy, specifically in young children. We take a closer look at the differences between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and prosocial motivation and how each of these play a role in the lives of young children. We investigated these three types of empathy in 19 children, ages 4 to 5 years from the College of Wooster Nursery School. Participants completed the EmQue-CA, a self-report empathy questionnaire, prior to testing as well as after testing. Participants in each group were read five books, the experimental group receiving empathy-related literature and the control group receiving emotionally neutral literature. Our results showed that there were no significant differences in empathy in pre-test empathy scores based upon sex as well as condition and no significant differences in post-test empathy scores by condition. We did find a significant difference between conditions in the amount of change from pre-test to post-test. These findings suggest that participants in the empathy condition may have experienced higher levels of emotional engagement, which could have resulted in them showing less to protect from the more intense emotional feelings.

Casey, Michael

Recommended Citation

Warstler, Cobi, "The Effects of Children's Literature on Cognitive Empathy, Affective Empathy, and Prosocial Motivation" (2020). Senior Independent Study Theses. Paper 9190. https://openworks.wooster.edu/independentstudy/9190

• Disciplines

Child Psychology | Developmental Psychology | Educational Psychology

cognitive empathy, affective empathy, prosocial motivation

Publication Date

Degree granted.

Bachelor of Arts

Document Type

Senior Independent Study Thesis

Since July 13, 2020

© Copyright 2020 Cobi Warstler

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Departments
• All Authors
• Faculty Authors
• Special Collections

Author Corner

• Submit Research

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• Boston University Libraries
• Theology Library Guides
• TY834: Empathy and Pluralism
• Find Articles in Databases
• Find More Books
• Citing Your Sources

Choosing Databases to Search

Journal articles  are the cutting edge of academic dialogue about their given subject. They are a   useful and necessary resource for nearly all academic research papers.

Articles  from academic journals today are indexed in  databases . This means we can go to a database, search by keyword, and find related articles from a broad range of journals indexed within that database.

BU has subscriptions to  over 500 databases , ranging from general academic databases (ex: JSTOR) to subject databases in everything from art to medicine to sociology.

Below, you'll see some recommended databases for this particular course, alongside some helpful search tips. You can also visit our STH Library  Databases  page for more ideas. 

Find Relevant Articles

• ATLA Religion Database This link opens in a new window An index to journal articles, essays, and book reviews in the field of religion. Covers biblical studies, world religions, church history, and religious perspectives on social issues. Date coverage: 1908 - present with some older items.
• Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection This link opens in a new window This database includes the full text of articles from more than 500 journals. It covers a broad range of topics related to psychology and the behavioral sciences including observational and experimental methods, child and adolescent psychology, and many areas of counseling. Date coverage: 1945-

PsycInfo provides access to journal articles, books and book chapters, and dissertations that cover the scholarly literature in the psychological, social, behavioral, and health sciences. It includes material of relevance to psychologists and professionals in related fields such as psychiatry, management, business, education, social science, neuroscience, law, medicine, and social work. Date coverage: 1894-

Comprehensive coverage of abstracts to the biomedical literature. Includes medicine, the allied health disciplines, and biomedical literature. Date Coverage: 1809 (selectively) - present.

• MEDLINE This link opens in a new window Contains the MEDLINE database of the National Library of Medicine for the current year and previous six years. Includes bibliographic citations and abstracts for biomedical literature in English and all foreign languages and is fully indexed.

Instruction & Collection Development Librarian

• << Previous: Find More Books
• Next: Citing Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: May 28, 2024 9:18 AM
• URL: https://library.bu.edu/ty834

Postdoc Spotlight: From Pune to Berkeley, Dr. Aakash Chowkase Strives to Reduce Polarization and Foster Empathy

Originally from Pune, India, Aakash's academic journey took him to Purdue University, where he completed his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology. His dissertation focused on developing empathy and emotional intelligence in intellectually gifted adolescents in India. This early work, encapsulated in a program called "Samvedana" (meaning "a concern for others"), laid the foundation for his current research interests.

At Berkeley, Aakash is part of a project funded by the Governor of California, aimed at fostering bridging attitudes and depolarization among AmeriCorps volunteers. These volunteers work in various service-learning programs, including College Corps, where they engage with diverse communities. Aakash's research involves developing and measuring the effectiveness of practices that promote social cohesion and reduce polarization.

"Our grant involves developing practices for AmeriCorps volunteers to help them recognize their common humanity and bridge divides," Aakash explains. "The goal is to change perceptions by focusing on storytelling, perspective-taking, and recognizing similarities, which can humanize people who seem different," he added.

Transitioning to Berkeley from an educational psychology background presented challenges. Aakash found himself amidst a highly quantitative psychology department, which required a significant realignment of his skills. "I felt like a fifth-year Ph.D. student among extremely talented grad students," he recalls. However, this environment also pushed him to develop new skills and embrace advanced statistical methods.

Despite these challenges, Aakash's dedication has led to significant achievements. In March alone, four of his studies were published, including a particularly challenging conceptual paper on courage. "These publications are part of the process," he says. "The biggest achievement is finding satisfaction in my work and knowing it helps people, especially adolescents, develop essential life skills."

One of the most personal challenges Aakash faced was overcoming imposter syndrome, particularly in an environment as competitive as Berkeley. "At Berkeley, there's an expectation to know everything, which can make you feel stupid in a room full of talented people," he admits. Over time, participating in classes and collaborative projects helped him gain confidence and overcome these feelings.

Looking ahead, Aakash is committed to continuing his work in academia. He envisions a future where he can secure a tenure-track position, focusing on educational psychology interventions that promote creativity, compassion, and holistic development in students. "I want to continue doing research that makes a difference," he asserts. "The industry can be transactional, but academia and nonprofit work align with my values of making a lasting impact."

Truly Championing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

A timely conversation about anti-racist leadership..

Posted May 28, 2024 | Reviewed by Monica Vilhauer

Research consistently demonstrates that organizations that prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) outperform their peers, not just in employee satisfaction but also in innovation and financial returns. Could leadership rooted in empathy be the game-changer in today's diverse, multi-generational workplaces?

In a recent episode of the Do Good to Lead Well podcast, I had the privilege to explore this question with a remarkable father-daughter team who co-authored the incredibly timely book, Anti-Racist Leadership . Their key lessons and insights come from a fusion of CEO-level wisdom (James) with a millennial's fresh take on diversity, equity, and inclusion informed by her extensive consulting experience (Krista). Their combined experience and perspectives offer an important guide for leaders today.

This post summarizes the key takeaways from our conversation.

Empathy is a building block for anti-racist leadership

The authors emphasize the importance of empathy as a top development skill for leaders and executives. Moving beyond the buzzword, true empathy takes considerable focus and practice. In their view, empathy is not a "soft skill"; it is a strategic asset that enables leaders to understand and relate to the experiences of their employees.

In a multigenerational workplace, where the youngest cohorts are eager to bring their whole selves to work, leaders must extend empathy to understand the unique contributions each generation brings. The presence of empathy in leadership can dismantle misconceptions, such as the alleged entitlement of younger generations, and instead harness their drive to challenge the status quo.

Moreover, empathy enables leaders to engage in transformative conversations that acknowledge the full humanity of their workforce, creating an environment where every individual feels valued and understood. Leaders who are open about their own challenges and limitations, especially when it comes to conversations about race, create a culture of trust. Sharing your experiences, especially when you demonstrate your own learning curve, can encourage others to open up and engage in conversations that truly matter.

Another powerful practice to elevate empathy is to actively seek out and engage in experiences that expose you to different perspectives. Attend events and conferences, or join groups where you're in the minority to gain insight into the challenges others face. As the authors share, their white colleagues reported feeling exhausted in those environments while also developing a deeper appreciation of the effects of these situations on attendees who are in the minority.

Move beyond the buzzwords: Integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as core values

An inclusive culture is not a dispensable luxury; it is a strategic imperative for the success of any organization. Individuals who feel included and valued are more likely to be engaged, motivated, and committed to their organization's goals . Therefore, it is crucial for companies to weave DEI into the very fabric of their corporate culture.

While discussions of DEI can "feel good," to truly "do good," senior leaders must move beyond talking about its importance. Diversity, equity, and inclusion have the largest impact when they are embedded as core values of an organization.

Developing an inclusive culture begins with a deep understanding of one's own biases and how these may inadvertently create barriers for others. Leaders must commit to continuous learning and unlearning, addressing any systemic inequalities that may exist within their organizations.

A commitment to DEI involves continuous learning and a willingness to confront and change policies or practices that may disadvantage certain groups. Embracing a philosophy of humility and grace is essential to do this effectively.

One great tip is challenging organizations to stretch beyond their typical strategy of "hiring for fit." As the authors persuasively argue, this may introduce bias about maintaining the status quo and necessarily limit the extent of their selection criteria. A more powerful and inclusive hiring philosophy involves hiring for enhancement. Assess the potential candidates on how they can enhance your current skillset and culture. This more comprehensive perspective can open considerable opportunities for growth and success.

Empower middle managers as agents of change

Middle managers play a very strategic role in driving DEI efforts within an organization, as they are often the closest leaders to the majority of the workforce and play a crucial role in shaping the employee experience. Empowering middle managers to be agents of change requires providing them with the necessary training, tools, and support to implement DEI initiatives.

Middle managers should be encouraged to foster open dialogues, challenge non-inclusive behavior, and advocate for their teams. Their commitment to DEI can have a significant impact on the overall culture of the company. By aligning the values and objectives of DEI with the roles and responsibilities of middle managers, organizations can ensure that their commitment to inclusion is reflected in day-to-day operations and interactions, rather than a temporary fad.

Despite its importance, organizations can struggle to successfully attend to issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. This should not be a "check-box exercise." Deeply embedding DEI into the DNA of your organization not only creates an environment where everyone can flourish, it is also the ultimate competitive advantage that propels organizations to the highest levels of success.

The full podcast episode: Truly Championing Diversity and Inclusion: A Timely Conversation About Anti-Racist Leadership - Do Good To Lead Well with Craig Dowden | Podcast on Spotify

Anti-Racist Leadership: How to Transform Corporate Culture in a Race-Conscious World by James D. White and Krista White

Craig Dowden, Ph.D., is an executive coach and speaker and the author of Do Good to Lead Well and A Time to Lead.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Accountancy and Control (master)
• Accountancy and Control (premaster)
• Actuarial Science (bachelor)
• Actuarial Science and Mathematical Finance (master)
• American Studies (master)
• Ancient Studies (bachelor)
• Arabische taal en cultuur (bachelor)
• Arbeidsrecht (master)
• Archaeology (master)
• Archaeology (premaster)
• Archaeology (bachelor), EN
• Archaeology and Heritage (research master)
• Archeologie (bachelor), NL
• Archival and Information Studies (duale master)
• Art and Performance Research Studies (research master)
• Artificial Intelligence (master)
• Bèta-gamma (bachelor)
• Bioinformatics and Systems Biology (master, joint degree)
• Biological Sciences (master)
• Biologie (bachelor)
• Biomedical Sciences (master)
• Biomedische wetenschappen (bachelor)
• BMS: Cell Biology and Advanced Microscopy (master)
• BMS: Cognitive Neurobiology and Clinical Neurophysiology (master)
• BMS: Developmental and Therapeutic Biology (master)
• BMS: Experimental Internal Medicine (master)
• BMS: Infection and Immunity (master)
• BMS: Medical Biochemistry and Biotechnology (master)
• BMS: Molecular Neurosciences (master)
• BMS: Oncology (master)
• BMS: Physiology of Synapses and Networks (master)
• BMS: Psychopharmacology and Pathophysiology (master)
• Boekwetenschap (master)
• Boekwetenschap (schakelprogramma)
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences (research master)
• BS: Ecology and Evolution (master)
• BS: Freshwater and Marine Biology (master)
• BS: General Biology (master)
• BS: Green Life Sciences (master)
• Business Administration (bachelor)
• Business Administration (master)
• Business Administration (premaster)
• Business Analytics (bachelor)
• Business Economics (master)
• Business Economics (premaster)
• Chemistry (master, joint degree)
• Chemistry (premaster)
• Chemistry: Analytical Sciences (master, joint degree)
• Chemistry: Molecular Sciences (master, joint degree)
• Chemistry: Science for Energy and Sustainability (master, joint degree)
• Child Development and Education (research master)
• Classics and Ancient Civilizations (master)
• Cognition, Language and Communication (bachelor)
• Commerciële rechtspraktijk (master)
• Communicatiewetenschap (bachelor)
• Communication and Information (duale master)
• Communication Science (bachelor)
• Communication Science (master)
• Communication Science (premaster)
• Communication Science (research master)
• Comparative Cultural Analysis (master)
• Comparative Literature (master)
• Computational Science (master, joint degree)
• Computational Social Science (bachelor)
• Computer Science (master, joint degree)
• Conflict Resolution and Governance (master)
• Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage (master)
• Cultural Analysis (research master)
• Cultural and Social Anthropology (master)
• Cultural and Social Anthropology (premaster)
• Cultural Anthropology and Development Sociology (bachelor)
• Culturele antropologie en ontwikkelingssociologie (bachelor)
• Cultuurwetenschappen (bachelor)
• Curating Art and Cultures (duale master)
• Data Science (master)
• Data Science and Business Analytics (master)
• Documentaire en fictie (duale master)
• Duits, Educatie en communicatie (master)
• Duits, Educatie en communicatie (schakelprogramma)
• Duitslandstudies (bachelor)
• Duitslandstudies (master)
• Earth Sciences (master)
• East European Studies (master)
• Econometrics (master)
• Econometrics (premaster)
• Econometrics and Data Science (bachelor)
• Economics (master)
• Economics (premaster)
• Economics and Business Economics (bachelor)
• Engels, Educatie en communicatie (master)
• Engels, Educatie en communicatie (schakelprogramma)
• English Language and Culture (bachelor)
• English Literature and Culture (master)
• Entrepreneurship (master)
• ES: Environmental Management (master)
• ES: Future Planet Ecosystem Science (master)
• ES: Geo-Ecological Dynamics (master)
• European Competition Law and Regulation (master)
• European Policy (master)
• European Private Law (master)
• European Studies (bachelor)
• European Studies (premaster)
• European Union Law (master)
• Europese studies (bachelor)
• Exchange programme Economics and Business
• Exchange programme Humanities
• Exchange programme Law - Amsterdam Law School
• Exchange programme PPLE - Politics, Psychology, Law and Economics
• Exchange programme Science
• Exchange programme Social and Behavioural Sciences
• Film Studies (master)
• Filosofie (bachelor)
• Filosofie (master)
• Finance (master)
• Fiscaal Recht (bachelor)
• Fiscaal Recht (master)
• Fiscale Economie (bachelor)
• Fiscale Economie (master)
• Fiscale Economie (premaster)
• Forensic Science (master)
• Frans, Educatie en communicatie (master)
• Frans, Educatie en communicatie (schakelprogramma)
• Franse taal en cultuur (bachelor)
• Future Planet Studies (bachelor)
• Geneeskunde (bachelor)
• Geneeskunde (master)
• Geneeskunde (schakelprogramma)
• General Linguistics (master)
• Geschiedenis (bachelor)
• Geschiedenis (master)
• Geschiedenis (research master)
• Geschiedenis (schakelprogramma)
• Geschiedenis van de internationale betrekkingen (master)
• Geschiedenis, Educatie en communicatie (master)
• Gezondheidsrecht (master)
• Gezondheidszorgpsychologie (master)
• Global Arts, Culture and Politics (bachelor)
• Griekse en Latijnse taal en cultuur (bachelor)
• Hebreeuwse taal en cultuur (bachelor)
• Heritage and Memory Studies (duale master)
• Holocaust and Genocide Studies (master)
• Human Geography (master)
• Human Geography (premaster)
• Human Geography and Planning (bachelor)
• Identity and Integration (master)
• Informatica (bachelor)
• Informatiekunde (bachelor)
• Informatierecht (master)
• Information Studies (master)
• Information Systems (master)
• Interdisciplinaire sociale wetenschap (bachelor)
• Internationaal en Europees belastingrecht (master)
• International and Transnational Criminal Law (master)
• International Criminal Law - Joint programme with Columbia Law School (master)
• International Development Studies (master)
• International Development Studies (premaster)
• International Development Studies (research master)
• International Dramaturgy (duale master)
• International Dramaturgy and Theatre Studies (premaster)
• International Tax Law (advanced master)
• International Trade and Investment Law (master)
• Italië Studies (bachelor)
• Jewish Studies (master)
• Journalism, Media and Globalisation (Erasmus Mundus Master's - joint degree)
• Journalistiek en media (duale master)
• Kunst, cultuur en politiek (master)
• Kunst, cultuur en politiek (schakelprogramma)
• Kunstgeschiedenis (bachelor)
• Kunstgeschiedenis (master)
• Kunstgeschiedenis (schakelprogramma)
• Kunstmatige intelligentie (bachelor)
• Language and Society (master)
• Language, Literature and Education (master)
• Language, Literature and Education (premaster)
• Latin American Studies (master)
• Latin American Studies (premaster)
• Law & Finance (master)
• Lerarenopleidingen
• Linguistics (bachelor)
• Linguistics (premaster)
• Linguistics and Communication (research master)
• Literary and Cultural Analysis (bachelor)
• Literary Studies (premaster)
• Literary Studies (research master)
• Literature, Culture and Society (master)
• Logic (master)
• Mathematics (master)
• Media and Culture (bachelor)
• Media and Information (bachelor)
• Media en cultuur (bachelor)
• Media Studies (premaster)
• Media Studies (research master)
• Medical Anthropology and Sociology (master)
• Medical Anthropology and Sociology (premaster)
• Medical informatics (master)
• Medische informatiekunde (bachelor)
• Midden-Oostenstudies (master)
• Midden-Oostenstudies (schakelprogramma)
• Militaire geschiedenis (master)
• Museum Studies (duale master)
• Music Studies (master)
• Music Studies (premaster)
• Muziekwetenschap (bachelor)
• Natuurkunde en sterrenkunde (bachelor, joint degree)
• Nederlands als tweede taal en meertaligheid (duale master)
• Nederlands als tweede taal en meertaligheid (schakelprogramma)
• Nederlands, Educatie en communicatie (master)
• Nederlands, Educatie en communicatie (schakelprogramma)
• Nederlandse taal en cultuur (bachelor)
• Nederlandse taal en cultuur (master)
• New Media and Digital Culture (master)
• Nieuwgriekse taal en cultuur (bachelor)
• Onderwijswetenschappen (bachelor)
• Onderwijswetenschappen (master)
• Onderwijswetenschappen (schakelprogramma)
• (Forensische) Orthopedagogiek (schakelprogramma)
• Oudheidwetenschappen (bachelor)
• P&A: Advanced Matter and Energy Physics (master, joint degree)
• P&A: Astronomy and Astrophysics (master, joint degree)
• P&A: Biophysics and Biophotonics (master, joint degree)
• P&A: General Physics and Astronomy (master, joint degree)
• P&A: GRAPPA - Gravitation, Astro-, and Particle Physics (master, joint degree)
• P&A: Science for Energy and Sustainability (master, joint degree)
• P&A: Theoretical Physics (master, joint degree)
• Pedagogical Sciences (master)
• Pedagogische wetenschappen (bachelor)
• Pedagogische wetenschappen (master)
• Philosophy (master)
• Philosophy (research master)
• Philosophy of the Humanities and the Social Sciences (master)
• Philosophy of the Humanities and the Social Sciences (schakelprogramma)
• Physics and Astronomy (master, joint degree)
• Political Science (bachelor)
• Political Science (master)
• Political Science (premaster)
• Politicologie (bachelor)
• PPLE - Politics, Psychology, Law and Economics (bachelor)
• Preservation and Presentation of the Moving Image (duale master)
• Preventieve jeugdhulp en opvoeding (schakelprogramma)
• Privaatrechtelijke rechtspraktijk (master)
• Psychobiologie (bachelor)
• Psychologie (schakelprogramma)
• Psychologie (bachelor), NL
• Psychologie (master), NL
• Psychology (premaster)
• Psychology (bachelor), EN
• Psychology (master), EN
• Psychology (research master), EN
• Public International Law (master)
• Publieksgeschiedenis (master)
• Rechtsgeleerdheid (bachelor)
• Rechtsgeleerdheid met HBO-vooropleiding (schakelprogramma)
• Rechtsgeleerdheid met WO-vooropleiding (schakelprogramma)
• Redacteur/editor (duale master)
• Religiewetenschappen (bachelor)
• Religious Studies (research master)
• Russische en Slavische studies (bachelor)
• Scandinavië studies (bachelor)
• Scheikunde (bachelor, joint degree)
• Security and Network Engineering (master)
• Sign Language Linguistics (bachelor)
• Social Sciences (research master)
• Sociale geografie en Planologie (bachelor)
• Sociologie (bachelor)
• Sociology (bachelor)
• Sociology (master)
• Sociology (premaster)
• Software Engineering (master)
• Spaanse en Latijns-Amerikaanse studies (bachelor)
• Spirituality and Religion (master)
• Spirituality and Religion (schakelprogramma)
• Staats- en bestuursrecht (master)
• Stads- en architectuurgeschiedenis (master)
• Stochastics and Financial Mathematics (master)
• Strafrecht (master)
• Taalwetenschappen (bachelor)
• Television and Cross-Media Culture (master)
• Theaterwetenschap (bachelor)
• Theatre Studies (master)
• Universitaire Pabo van Amsterdam (bachelor)
• Urban and Regional Planning (master)
• Urban and Regional Planning (premaster)
• Urban Studies (research master)
• Vertalen (master)
• Vertalen (schakelprogramma)
• Wiskunde (bachelor)

For current information about the demonstrations, see uva.nl/protests External link . 

Presentation Master's Thesis - Duygu Yildiz - Work and Organisational Psychology

Roeterseilandcampus, Building: G, Street: Nieuwe Achtergracht 129-b, Room GS.09

Most of the leader narcissism research has focused on employees as recipients within leader-employee dynamics, particularly the detrimental consequences of narcissistic leaders on employee job satisfaction. Drawing on conservation of resources theory, self-determination theory, and the similarity-attraction paradigm, we reversed this focus by examining employees as agents within these dynamics. Our correlational study aimed to investigate the moderating effect of employee narcissism and the underlying mechanism of employee ingratiation in the relationship between leader narcissism and employees job satisfaction. We recruited 185 employees from European organisations and used reliable, validated questionnaires to measure leader narcissism, employee narcissism, employee ingratiation, and employee job satisfaction. We hypothesised that leader narcissism is negatively related to employee job satisfaction (H1), that employee narcissism mitigates this negative relationship (H2), that leader narcissism is positively related to employee ingratiation (H3), that employee narcissism strengthens this positive relationship (H4), that employee ingratiation is positively related to job satisfaction (H5), and that employee narcissism moderates the relationship between leader narcissism and job satisfaction through ingratiation (H6). Our results confirmed two hypotheses, concluding that leader narcissism negatively related to employee job satisfaction and positively related to employee ingratiation. Our findings suggest that narcissistic leaders create atmospheres where ingratiation is valued, and employee job satisfaction is negatively affected. Organisations can use these insights to develop training programmes highlighting the benefits of ingratiation and encourage leaders to prioritise employee well-being.