Content uploaded by Paula Samper
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paula Samper on Mar 04, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Since the 1970s there has been a growing interest in analysing sex differences in
psychological variables. Empirical studies and meta- analyses have contributed evidence
on the differences between male and female individuals. More recently, the gender
similarities hypothesis has supported the similarity of men and women in most
psychological variables. This study contributes information on women’s greater empathic
disposition in comparison with men by means of a longitudinal design in an adolescent
population. 505 male and female adolescents aged between 13 and 16 years were evaluated
at two different moments (grade 2 and grade 3, lower secondary education). They completed
the Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents by Bryant and the Interpersonal
Reactivity Index by Davis. The results confirm a greater empathic response in females
than in males of the same age, differences growing with age. The sizes of the effect
estimated in the second evaluation (average age 14 years) are large for emotional empathy
and medium for cognitive empathy.
Keywords: empathy, gender differences, adolescence
Desde la década de los 70 se incrementa el interés por analizar las diferencias de género
en las variables psicológicas y se publican estudios empíricos y trabajos de meta-análisis
que aportan evidencia de las diferencias entre varones y mujeres. Más recientemente
se ha planteado la hipótesis de la similitud de género que defiende la semejanza entre
varones y mujeres en la mayoría de los constructos psicológicos. Este estudio aporta
datos sobre la mayor disposición empática en la mujer respecto al varón a través de un
diseño longitudinal en población adolescente. 505 adolescentes varones y mujeres, con
un rango de edad entre 13 y 16 años fueron evaluados en dos momentos temporales
(2º y 3º curso de ESO). Cumplimentaron el Índice de Empatía de Bryant y el Índice de
Reactividad Interpersonal de Davis. Los resultados confirman mayor respuesta empática
en las adolescentes respecto a los varones de su misma edad y constatan que dichas
diferencias aumentan con la edad. Los tamaños del efecto estimados en el segundo
momento (edad media 14 años) son grandes en la empatía emocional y medios en la
cognitiva.
Palabras clave: empatía, diferencias de género, adolescencia
Are Women More Empathetic than Men?
A Longitudinal Study in Adolescence
María Vicenta Mestre, Paula Samper, María Dolores Frías, and Ana María Tur
Universidad de Valencia (Spain)
The Spanish Journal of Psychology Copyright 2009 by The Spanish Journal of Psychology
2009, Vol. 12, No. 1, 76-83 ISSN 1138-7416
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to María Vicenta Mestre Escrivá, Departamento de Psicología Básica.
Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Valencia, Avda. Blasco Ibáñez, 21, 46010 Valencia, Spain. Phone: +34 963 86 48 22. E-mail:
Maria.V.Mestre@uv.es
How to cite the authors of this article: Mestre, M.V, Samper, P., Frías, M.D., Tur, A.M.
76
Systematic attempts to reach conclusions about sex
differences and similarities became important in the 1970s
in psychology. The book by E. E. Maccoby and C.N. Jacklin,
The Psychology of Sex Differences (1974), is considered by
psychologists to be the greatest effort ever made in
summarising all sex comparisons carried out by
psychological research (Eagly, 1995). The authors posed a
number of questions: Are both sexes different as to their
emotional response to people and events? Is their strength
to cope with problems different? Are such differences
unavoidable or the result of arbitrary social stereotypes that
could change if society changed? Their review of almost
1,400 papers on sex differences in psychological variables
allowed them to conclude that well grounded sex differences
point to women’s greater communication skills versus men’s
better visual-spatial and mathematical ability and greater
physical and verbal aggression. In contrast, results were
ambiguous in many other variables such as fear, anxiety,
competitiveness, control–submission, and also empathy and
the will to help others. With regard to the latter two variables,
findings on altruism displayed gender similarities (Maccoby
& Jacklin, 1974). On the other hand, in his review of the
subject, Hoffman (1977) differentiated between measures
of empathy defined as an emotional response to the others’
affective condition, and perspective taking and social
sensitivity measures, concluding that women were more
empathetic than men. In 1983, a comprehensive review
published by Eisenberg and Lennon on sex differences in
the tendency to be empathetic found sex differences in favour
of women, empathy being also understood from the
emotional and cognitive perspective and comparing different
instruments. Yet, the authors pointed out that research
remained open, “to date, the only thing that can be concluded
with confidence is that many important issues concerning
sex differences in emotional empathy are, as yet, unresolved”
(Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983, p. 126).
In Davis’s multidimensional approach to empathy
measurement, which measures cognitive and emotional
factors as components of empathic disposition, the author
concludes that significant sex differences exist for each
individual scale in his instrument (Interpersonal Reactivity
Index, IRI), women always scoring higher (Davis, 1983).
In 1990, after comparing his findings from 1974 and
those of subsequent studies, Maccoby concluded again that
results remained inconsistent in the personality and social
behaviour field. Some studies described men as being more
aggressive than women, while other studies considered men
to be more altruistic, and other studies showed women to
be more prone to be influenced by others. Maccoby adopted
a social perspective in order to justify these sex differences,
arguing that men and women are actually far more similar
and that their lives are basically marked by features shared
by everybody in a specific culture. In Maccoby’s opinion,
social behaviour should never be considered solely on the
basis of the individual but should be considered as an
interaction between two or more people, since people behave
differently with different individuals (Maccoby, 1990).
Over the past decade interest has grown in empirically
exploring the role of empathy in moral and prosocial
behaviour and as an inhibitor of aggression and antisocial
behaviour. In that context, Eisenberg reviewed the relevance
of emotions and regulation in moral development, concluding
that empathy as a regulated emotion targeted at others
motivates prosocial behaviour, establishing links between
emotional regulation and morality. In contrast, negative
emotion and a poor self-regulation capacity are connected
to maladapted behaviour and the externalisation of problems
(Eisenberg, 2000). Studies completed with Spanish
adolescent populations confirm the positive effect of empathy
on social behaviour, empathy being described as a non-
impulsive emotion oriented towards the other, while
emotional instability reaches the highest predictive power
for aggressive and antisocial behaviour. In all these studies
gender is a relevant moderating factor for these behaviours
(Calvo, González, & Martorell, 2001; Mestre, Samper, &
Frías, 2002; Sobral, Romero, Luengo, & Marzoa, 2000).
Along the same lines, studies on adolescents have pointed
to the relationship between high empathy and high altruism,
this connection being stronger in girls than in boys (Carlo,
Hausmann, Christiansen, & Randall, 2003). These results
are confirmed if processes are not simply analysed on the
basis of gender but if the orientation of the gender role is
also evaluated. Thus, a female orientation is predictive of
greater empathy both as concern for the other and as
perspective taking (Carlo, Koller, Eisenberg, Silva, &
Frohlich, 1996; Eisenberg, Zhou, & Koller, 2001) and
predictive of less criminal behaviours in adolescents with
this type of orientation (Keung Ma, 2005).
Furthermore, empathy is also significantly related to
maladapted behaviours in young people, becoming a strong
predictor of antisocial behaviour in both boys and girls, but
the emotional component is the greatest protection factor
for women (Broidy, Cauffman, Espelage, Mazerolle, &
Piquero, 2003). In other studies, empathy is associated with
less negative reactions to insults especially in males when
compared to females (Toussaint & Webb, 2005).The
interaction between empathy and gender in the prediction
of prosocial behaviour shows a strong link between empathy
and prosocial behaviour in males (McMahon, Wernsman,
& Parnes, 2006).
Lastly, current research focuses on identifying interactions
between personal and contextual factors, and within these
contextual factors research on parenting styles is a particular
interest. Thus, parenting styles characterised by affection,
control and emotional support seem to boost empathy and
prosocial development, while hostile and rigid styles marked
by a negative evaluation of the child facilitates aggression.
When such interactions are analysed from the perspective
of sex differences, girls seem to be more receptive to
affection and support in family relationships (Carlo, Raffaelli,
WOMEN’S EMPATHIC DISPOSITION 77
Laible, & Meyer, 1999; Mestre, Samper, & Frías, 2004;
Mestre, Samper, Tur, Cortés, & Nácher, 2006).
Although the studies repetitively confirm the important
regulating role of empathy in prosocial behaviour and its
inhibitory power on aggressive and antisocial behaviours,
gender plays a moderating role. The findings suggest that
the question of sex differences in empathy and social
behaviours remains unresolved and that research on prosocial
behaviour and potential moderating variables must consider
sex differences. Further research on this issue is needed to
examine the gender similarities hypothesis (Hyde, 2005).
This hypothesis suggest that men and women are similar in
most –not all- psychological variables. As far as helping
behaviour is concerned, Hyde’s meta-analytic review of 46
studies showed that differences in favour of men (situations
of greater danger) can be either large or close to zero
depending on the social environment where the behaviour
was measured. Therefore, the issue of sex differences in
prosocial behaviours is unclear. Rather, further empirical
evidence is needed to investigate sex differences in empathy,
prosocial behaviour and aggression.
Based on the gender similarities hypothesis on the one
hand and the empirical studies and reviews of recent decades
on the other, we decided to undertake this study to examine
differences or similarities between male and female
adolescents in empathy-related cognitive and emotional
processes, given the important role that it plays in adaptive
or maladaptive behaviour in youth. The findings will inform
educational programmer aimed at promoting empathy and
prosocial behaviours as inhibitors of aggressive behaviours.
Using a longitudinal design, the following hypotheses
were developed:
1. Female adolescents are more empathetic than their male
peers with regard to both the cognitive components of
empathy and the emotional ones.
2. Sex differences in empathy increase with age.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 505 subjects randomly selected
from state schools (30.3%) and partly subsidised ones (69.7)
from the Valencia region (Spain), their ages ranging from
13 to 16 years (242 boys and 263 girls). The study included
all classes from grade 2 (secondary education). In the first
evaluation, the participants had a mean age of 13.25 years
(SD = 0.460, 13 years minimum age and 15 years maximum
age) and in the second one mean age was 14.25 years (SD
= 0.560, 13 years minimum age and 16 years maximum
age). In the first evaluation phase (academic year 2002-
2003), subjects were in year 2, lower secondary, and in year
3 in the second phase.
Instruments
All subjects filled in the following empathy questionnaires,
adapted to the Spanish population:
Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents (IECA;
Bryant, 1982). This index is intended to measure empathy
in different situations with emotional connotations, an
individual of the same or opposite sex being the character
of the scene/item and also including neutral statements where
empathy is expressed without a gender reference. It measures
the emotional component of empathy. It consists of 22 items:
Four with a female reference, four with a male reference and
14 without a specific reference. Answers were dichotomous
(yes or no), high scores reflecting high empathy. The internal
consistency analysis of Bryant’s instrument (1982) showed
a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.67, this value was higher with age.
In our study (Mestre, Pérez-Delgado, Frías, & Samper, 1999),
the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients obtained for the
sample at the two evaluation moments were 0.75 for
Evaluation 1 and 0.77 in Evaluation 2.
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980). This
instrument evaluates empathetic disposition by means of
two emotional factors and two cognitive ones: Perspective
Taking, Fantasy, Empathic Concern, and Personal Distress.
It includes 28 Likert-type items with five possible options
scoring 1 to 5. The reliability analysis of the IR empathy
questionnaire included the calculation of Cronbach’s alpha
for the four subscales in the instrument. Other studies with
Spanish adolescent populations have obtained similar
coefficients (Mestre et al., 1999; Mestre, Frías, & Samper,
2004, Mestre, Samper, Tur, Díez, & Nácher, 2001-2004)
(see Table 1). Alpha values for the present sample ranged
between 0.55 for the Personal Distress (PD) scale in
evaluation 1 and 0.68 for the Fantasy (FS) scale in evaluation
2 (see Table 1).
MESTRE, SAMPER, FRÍAS, AND TUR
78
Table 1
Reliability coefficients of Interpersonal Reactivity Index subscale in evaluation 1 and evaluation 2
Items Evaluation 1 Evaluation 2 Mestre, et al (1999) Mestre et al (2001-2004) Mestre et al (2004)
PT 7 items 0.61 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.56
FS 7 items 0.64 0.68 0.75 0.68 0.70
EC 7 items 0.62 0.62 0.58 0.64 0.65
PD 7 items 0.55 0.65 0.69 0.64 0.64
Procedure
In the first evaluation, secondary education schools were
randomly selected. A total of 22 schools and 36 classes
participated. All the groups in the corresponding level (Year
2 and Year 3) were assessed. In the research design, two
successive evaluations of the same student groups were
conducted in the first term of the school calendar, one
evaluation per year.
Subjects were evaluated in groups and at school hours
at the classroom. Verbal instructions were given before filling
in the questionnaires. They were administered in a 45 min
session (approximately) in the two evaluations.
Results
The approach of the research hypothesis requires
exploring the effect of interactions between gender and
chronological age. In our hypothesis women, were expected
to be more empathetic than men, these differences were
expected to increase with age. The study of the effect of
the interaction gender/chronological age was based on a
mixed design with two factors, sex (boy-girl) and
chronological age (Moment 1-Moment 2). The chronological
age was operationalized as two assessment period separated
by a one-year interval, as explained in the sample
description. At Moment 1, subjects were 13.25 years old
on average and at Moment 2, the mean age was 14.25 years.
Each individual variable measured with either the scales
or the subscales were analysed on the basis of this design
type.
Results from the analysis of variance using the mixed
design between sex and chronological age show a statistically
significant interaction effect with each measuring instrument
(see Table 2). The analysis of variance shows the equality
of variances (p> .05) in the mixed designs of each one of
the subscales of empathy, both in the main and interaction
effects. The fulfilment of the esfericity of covariances
matrixes is not an obstacle in our design provided that only
two groups are in each variable in our repeated measures
design. The mean scores and standard deviations of the
interaction effects between sex and chronological age can
be seen in Table 3.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the interactions between sex
and chronological age, for each measure used. The graphic
representations of the interactions are positive ordinal, the
girls’ mean score always being higher than that of boys,
WOMEN’S EMPATHIC DISPOSITION 79
Table 2
Results of the effect of interaction between Sex and Chronological Age in the mixed design
Instrument Fvalue p
η
2p
Index of empathy for children and adolescents (IECA)F(1, 503) = 6.461 0.011 0.013
Perspective taking (PT)F(1, 502) = 5.967 0.015 0.012
Fantasy (FS)F(1, 502) = 20.674 0.001 0.040
Emphatic concern (EC)F(1, 503) = 38.222 0.001 0.071
Personal distress (PD)F(1, 502) = 24.236 0.001 0.046
Table 3
Measure of Sex
×
Chronological Age interaction and standard deviation
Instrument Boys Girls
Evaluation 1 Evaluation 2 Evaluation 1 Evaluation 2
IECA 13,566 13,562 17,308 17,939
(3,22) (2,816) (3,227) (2,822)
PT 16,062 21,901 17,233 24,164
(4,216) (4,59) (4,21) (4,581)
FS 13,227 19,483 14,263 22,679
(4,962) (5,46) (4,97) (5,455)
EC 11,450 22,942 12,298 26,378
(3,873) (4,091) (3,87) (4,095)
PD 13,384 16,459 14,092 19,321
(4,03) (4,558) (4,03) (4,548)
* Standard deviation in brackets.
both in Year 1 and Year 2 of the evaluation. In addition, the
positive nature of the interaction effects shows that at
Moment 2, differences between the mean scores of boys
and girls increase if compared to Moment 1. The statistical
study of the interaction effect between sex and chronological
age was conducted with the Bonferroni correction for
multiple comparisons.
With regard to main effects of sex at age assessment
period, several significant differences in empathy between
boys and girls were found. In Bryant’s scale, statistically
significant differences in means between boys and girls were
found at Moment 1, with a mean difference of 3.742, p =
.001, and at Moment 2 with a mean difference of 4.377, p
= .001, the girls’ mean score always higher than that of boys
in each assessment period.
All subscales in the IRI show that mean scores for both
sexes increase with age but the girls’ higher mean values
remain, an increase in the sex differences occurring in
Evaluation 2 The ordinal effect is seen in the Perspective
Taking subscale, girls obtaining a higher mean value in each
assessment period. Differences with boys are statistically
significant for both Evaluation 1 (mean value difference
1.171, p = .002) and Evaluation 2 (mean value difference
2.263, p = .001).
MESTRE, SAMPER, FRÍAS, AND TUR
80
Figure 2. Graphic representation of mean values of interaction between Sex ×Chronological Development in Davis’s Interpersonal
Reactivity Index subescales
Figure 1. Graphic representation of mean values of interaction between
Sex ×Chronological Development in Bryant’s IECA.
Similarly, in the Fantasy subscale girls obtain a higher
mean value in each assessment period. Differences with
boys are statistically significant for both Evaluation 1 (mean
value difference 1.036, p = .02) and Evaluation 2 (mean
value difference 3.196, p = .001).
The ordinal interaction effect is identified in the Emphatic
Concern subscale, girls obtaining a higher mean value in
each assessment period. Differences with boys are
statistically ignificant for both Moment 1 (mean value
difference 0.847, p = .014) and Moment 2 (mean value
difference 3.436, p = .001).
In the Personal Distress subscale, girls obtain a higher
mean value in each assessment period. Differences with
boys are statistically significant for both Moment 1 (mean
value difference 0.707, p = .05) and Moment 2 (mean value
difference 2.862, p = .001).
The sizes of the effect of the standardised means
differences (d) identified by Bryant’s IECA are large in
Cohen‘s (1988) terms in both the first (d = 1.161) and
second evaluation (d = 1.552) (see Table 4). Davis’s IRI
instrument shows that in the first evaluation the size of the
effect is small, around 0.2. However, in the second
evaluation, the size of the effect grows to 0.5 approximately
in Cohen’s terms, emotional empathy measured by the
Empathic Concern subscale (EC) reaching a large effect size
(d = 0.84).
Therefore, the estimations of the effect sizes obtained
by Cohen’s d concerning empathy levels in boys and girls
are higher in the second evaluation if compared to those of
the first assessment.
Discussion
Based on the findings, we can conclude that there are
statistically significant differences between same age, male
and female adolescents as far as their ability to feel or
experience the emotions of others are concerned (emotional
empathy) and in their cognitive capacity to understand the
others’ emotions (cognitive empathy). Furthermore, sex
differences in empathy increased considerably between the
first and the second assessment period. Same age girls are
therefore more empathetic than boys and sex differences
are greater (larger effect size) as they move on to the
following developmental stage.
The two developmental moments chosen for the present
study are the key to understanding sex differences in
empathy. Turning 14 years of age entailed greater differences
between boys and girls, as shown by the results. The changes
in sex differences between boys and girls were identified
in both Bryant’s IECA –which just evaluates the emotional
component of empathy- and Davis’s IRI, where empathy is
measured from a multidimensional perspective including
both cognitive and emotional aspects of the empathic
response. Understanding those changes and the sex
differences is fundamental to developing programmes that
focus on empathy development.
Although sex differences were found in both the Bryant
and Davis measures, the effect sizes were larger for
emotional empathy than for cognitive empathy. Furthermore,
there was a greater effect size in the IECA instrument than
in the Empathic Concern subscale of the IRI. This result
WOMEN’S EMPATHIC DISPOSITION 81
Table 4
Effect sizes (d) and Confidence Interval (95%) in boys and girls in evaluations 1 and 2
Instrument Evaluation 1 Evaluation 2
Effect size Confidence interval Effect size Confidence interval
IECA d= 1,161 0.972-1.350 d= 1,552 1.352-1.752
(0.096) p=0.000 (0.102) p=0.000
PT d= 0.278 0.102-0.454 d= 0,493 0.315-0.671
(0.089) p=0.002 (0.090) p=0.000
FS d= 0.207 0.032-0.383 d= 0.586 0.407-0.765
(0.089) p=0.020 (0.091) p=0.000
EC d= 0.219 0.044-0.395 d= 0.840 0.657-1.023
(0.089) p=0.014 (0.093) p=0.000
PD d= 0.176 0.001-0.352 d= 0.628 0.449-0.808
(0.089) p=0.048 (0.091) p=0.000
* Standard error of the effect size in brackets
* Effect Size (Cohen’ d) = MeanWomen – MeanMen /spooled ; Pooled Standard Deviation (spooled) = sqrt(((nwomen-1)*SD2women +
(nmen–1)*SD2men)/(nwomen+nmen–2))
reveals greater sensitivity in IECA for the evaluation of
emotions related to the need of others for the studied age
range. Thus, the findings suggest that empathy studies
should be conducted in the early years of adolescence when
the goals are to analyse changes in the emotional aspects
of empathy.
Within each assessment period, girls scored higher than
boys in their ability to stand in “the other person’s shoes”
and also in the feelings towards a person in trouble or in
need. Therefore, sex differences are not just found in the
emotional realm of empathy but also in the capacity of
understanding the other person’s state and situation. These
findings are in line with those obtained by the instrument’s
author (Davis, 1983) and by other experts who have also
used the IRI for empathy evaluation from a multidimensional
perspective (Carlo et al., 2003; Carlo et al., 1996; Carlo et
al., 1999; Eisenberg et al., 2001; Mestre et al, 2004; Mestre
et al., 2002).
The effect sizes obtained illustrate the largest effect size
being found when empathy was evaluated by Bryant´s IECA.
The effect size using Bryant measure is large at the two
evaluation moments. In constrast, all the subscales in Davis’s
IRI showed a larger effect size at the second evaluation
moment compared to the first evaluation moment, the effect
size ranging between medium and large. The Empathic
Concern factor had an especially large effect in the second
evaluation. From the perspective of the gender similarities
hypothesis, Hyde’s review (2005) of studies on moral
reasoning oriented towards care (the closest construct to
empathy studied by the author) estimated an effect size of
0.28 (small effect size). In our analysis, effect size values
remain at about 0.20 (except for IECA) in Moment 1 but
they were larger in Moment 2, indicating that there were
greater differences in empathy in later adolescence.
The implications of our empathy results are strongly in
line with the study of prosocial behaviour and antisocial
behaviour inhibition and bullying (Jolliffe & Farrington,
2004, 2006), which also reveals sex differences. Thus,
subjects with low empathy seem to have problems in relating
their antisocial behaviour with emotional reactions in others,
and men seem to be more likely to violently bully others
in comparison with women (Olweus, 1993). The analysis
of the links between these constructs will allow to re-
approach differences between emotional and cognitive
empathy, given the results that associate negative
relationships between emotional empathy and bullying
(Endresen & Olweus, 2002) and between bullying and
cognitive empathy (Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999).
In summary, empathic disposition, which is considered to
be the main driver of prosocial behaviour, is developed in
female adolescents to a greater extent than in male
adolescents. This result should be taken into account in the
design of educational programmes aimed at improving
prosocial disposition and positive social interaction, and at
inhibiting aggression. Now that violent behaviours have
became more frequent in different settings, empathy
development, in its cognitive (perspective taking) and
emotional (concern for the other) aspects, can play an
inhibiting role and become a protective factor within the
family and in school. Research must further find statistically
significant interaction effects that can help us identify the
variables that moderate prosocial and aggressive behaviours,
the form they take on in male and female individuals, and
the effects that the development of a higher empathy level
has on both males and females.
References
Broidy, L., Cauffman, E., Espelage, D. L., Mazerolle, P., &
Piquero, A. (2003). Sex differences in empathy and its
relation to juvenile offending. Violence and Victims, 18(5),
503-516
Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and
adolescents. Child Development, 53, 413-425.
Calvo, A. J., González, R., & Martorell, M. C. (2001). Variables
relacionadas con la conducta prosocial en la infancia y la
adolescencia: personalidad, autoconcepto y género. Infancia y
Aprendizaje, 93, 95-111.
Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003).
Sociocognitive and behavioural correlates of a measure of
prosocial tendencies for adolescents. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 23(1), 107-134
Carlo, G., Koller, S. H., Eisenberg, N., Silva, M. S., & Frohlich,
C. B. (1996). A cross-national study on the relations among
prosocial moral reasoning, gender role orientations, and
prosocial behaviours. Developmental Psychology, 32(2), 231-
240
Carlo, G., Raffaelli, M., Laible, D. J., & Meyer, K. A. (1999). Why
are girls less physically aggressive than boys? Personality and
parenting mediators of physical aggression. Sex Roles, 40(9/10),
711-729
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 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
Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women
and men. American Psychologist, 10(3), 145-158
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development.
Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665-697
Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy
and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94(1), 100-131
Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., & Koller, S. (2001). Brazilian adolescents’
prosocial moral judgment and behavior: relations to sympathy,
perspective taking, gender-role orientation, and demographic
characteristics. Child Development, 72(2), 518-534
MESTRE, SAMPER, FRÍAS, AND TUR
82
Endresen, I. M., & Olweus, D. (2002). Self-reported empathy in
Norwegian adolescents: sex differences, age trends and
relationships to bullying. In D. Stipek & A. Bohart (Eds.),
Constructive and destructive behaviour: Implications for family,
school and society (pp. 147-165). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related
behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 54,712-722
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American
Psychologist, 60(6), 581-592.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending:
a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggressive and Violent
Behaviour, 9, 441-476.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Examining the relationship
between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behaviour, 32,
540-550.
Keung Ma, H. (2005). The relation of gender-role classifications
to the prosocial and antisocial behaviour of Chinese adolescents.
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(2), 189-201.
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental
account. American Psychologist, 45(4), 513-520).
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex
differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
McMahon, S. D., Wernsman,, J., & Parnes, A. L. (2006).
Understanding prosocial behaviour: The impact of empathy
and gender among African American adolescents. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 39(1), 135-137
Mestre, V., Frías, M. D., & Samper, P. (2004). La medida de la
empatía: Análisis del Interpersonal Reactivity Index.
Psicothema, 16(2), 255-260.
Mestre, V., Pérez-Delgado, E., Frías, M. D., & Samper, P. (1999).
Instrumentos de evaluación de la empatía. In E. Pérez-Delgado
& V. Mestre (Eds.), Psicología moral y crecimiento personal
(pp.181-190). Barcelona: Ariel.
Mestre, V., Samper, P., & Frías, M. D. (2002). Procesos cognitivos
y emocionales predictores de la conducta prosocial y agresiva:
La empatía como factor modulador. Psicothema, 14, (2), 227-
232
Mestre, V., Samper, P., & Frías, M. D. (2004). Personalidad y
contexto familiar como factores predoctores de la disposición
prosocial y antisocial de los adolescentes. Revista
Latinoamericana de Psicología, 36, 445-457
Mestre, V., Samper, P., Tur, A., Cortés, M. T., & Nácher, M. J.
(2006). Conducta prosocial y procesos psicológicos implicados:
Un estudio longitudinal en la adolescencia. Revista Mexicana
de Psicología, 23(2), 203-215.
Mestre, V., Samper, P., Tur, A., Díez, I., & Nácher, M. J. (2001-
2004). Estilos de crianza y variables escolares relacionadas
con la conducta prosocial y la conducta agresiva: Un estudio
longitudinal. R&D&I project, ref. BSO2001-304, Ministerio
de Ciencia y Tecnología.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Pérez-Albéniz, A., de Paúl, J., Etxebarría, J., Montes, M. P., &
Torres, E. (2003). Adaptación del Interpersonal Reactivity Index
(IRI) al español. Psicothema, 15(2), 267-272.
Sobral, J., Romero, E., Luengo, A., & Marzoa, J. (2000).
Personalidad y conducta antisocial: Amplificadores individuales
de los efectos contextuales. Psicothema, 12(4), 661-670
Sutton, J., Smith P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition
and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 435-450.
Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. R. (2005). Gender differences in the
relationship between empathy and forgiveness. The Journal of
Social Psycholohy, 145(6), 673-685.
Received November 27, 2006
Revision received July 7, 2008
Accepted September 9, 2008
WOMEN’S EMPATHIC DISPOSITION 83
