Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Environment and Social Psychology (2023) Volume 8 Issue 3
doi: 10.54517/esp.v8i3.2176
1
Research Article
Impact of empathic skills to social intelligence
Blerim Hetemi1, Kaltrina Abazi2, Blerta Kryeziu1,2, Adnan Hoxha1, Vjose Hajrullahu1, Florim Gallopeni1,
Besarta Taganoviq1,*
1 Kolegji Heimerer, 10000 Prishtina, Kosovo
2 Univeristeti i Prishtines, 10000 Prishtina, Kosovo
* Corresponding author: Besarta Taganoviq, besarta.taganoviq@kolegji-heimerer.eu
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Empathy, or being empathetic, is the meaning of the inner framework of others with the precision and
the emotional component and understanding the other was a person, but never lost; as a state. Being empathic, also known
as comprehending another’ inner workings precisely and emotionally, and realizing that the other person was once a
person but is now a state. Social intelligence is the ability to understand and manage people. The purpose of this research
was to evaluate the knowledge that nursing students and students carry about empathic skills and social intelligence.
Methods: This research is descriptive and quantitative. It is cross-sectional research. The Empathy quotient (EQ)
questionnaire is used to measure empirical skills. The questionnaire Messi Methodology was used to measure social
intelligence. The study involved a participant pool of 150 individuals. Results and discussion: From the findings through
the correlation analysis, there has been a positive correlation between empathic skills and social intelligence with r =
0.301 and p = 0.010 *. The model explains 12% of variance and is significant with p = 0.028, where from the three
explanatory factors only social intelligence with p = is significant 0.007 **, while gender and age do not appear to be
significant explanations for empathic skills. Research findings show that there is a link between empathic skills and social
intelligence where our first hypothesis is confirmed. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study highlights the necessity to
differentiate between different types of empathy while confirming the robust correlation between social intelligence and
empathy. It refutes the notion that empathy varies with age by showing constant values throughout the age spectrum.
Despite the fact that gender was not a significant effect, this highlights the significance of recognizing gender differences
in empathic abilities.
Keywords: empathy; social intelligence; nursing students; pupils
1. Introduction
Empathy or being empathic is an understanding of the other’s inner framework, with the correctness and
emotional component and understanding “as if” the other was a person, but never lost “as” as a state[1]. The
psychological concept of empathy is complex and involves both affective and cognitive aspects. It entails
having the ability to comprehend and share the emotions, ideas, and viewpoints of others; it is influenced by
both inherent traits and current situational states, shaping the empathetic response[2]. The term empathy
originated more than a century ago, derived from the German word Einfühlung. Empathy in psychotherapy
ARTICLE INFO
Received: 16 October 2023 | Accepted: 30 October 2023 | Available online: 2 November 2023
CITATION
Hetemi B, Abazi K, Kryeziu B, et al. Impact of empathic skills to social intelligence. Environment and Social Psychology 2023; 8(3): 2176. doi:
10.54517/esp.v8i3.2176
COPYRIGHT
Copyright © 2023 by author(s). Environment and Social Psychology is published by Asia Pacific Academy of Science Pte. Ltd. This is an Open
Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
permitting distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is cited.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.54517/esp.v8i3.2176
2
emerged in the 1950s. The person-centered approach described it as a temporary state where a health
professional strives to understand a healthcare user’s life without forming a personal bond with them[3].
Empathy is the capacity to comprehend and share the emotions of others. It holds significant importance in
various psychological approaches, such as psychodynamic, behavioral, and person-centered, as it forms the
foundation for building a therapeutic relationship with healthcare users and fostering therapeutic
transformation[4]. The modern understanding of empathy involves three dimensions: affective, cognitive, and
behavioral[5–7]. Over time, its development has occurred in three distinct phases: until the late 1950s, cognitive
aspects were prominent, from the 1960s, emphasis shifted to the affective dimension, and since the 1970s,
empathy has been comprehensively defined with the inclusion of the behavioral component in the practice of
healthcare professionals[8]. Empathy includes moral aspects, emotional facets, cognitive elements, and
behavioral dimension[9]. According to research, is the ability to successfully communicate that one understands
the viewpoint and experiences of a client. A relevant definition of empathy in the context of clinical nursing
emphasizes how important it is to understand clients’ discomfort and provide helpful interpersonal
communication[2]. It is crucial to point out the value of the nurse’s active and emotionally involved involvement
in the patient’s situation, especially during difficult or obviously unfair circumstances, rather than emphasizing
the outcome of empathy. This calls for an emphasis on the nurse’s authentic approach.
In social interactions as well as other circumstances, empathy has several benefits. According to Rumble
et al.,[10], it is an effective method for resolving mistaken actions and eventually maintaining or even improving
collaboration. This essential human quality can enhance reputation, lengthen life expectancy, and promote
fruitful social relationships in addition to promoting good well-being[11]. Furthermore, empathy shows that it
can reduce antisocial, vindictive, discriminating, and unethical behavior in service environments, improving
value-in-context experiences for service innovation consumers[12]. In the medical field, empathy is essential to
the doctor-patient connection and enhances health outcomes[13]. Research indicates that interventions designed
to augment empathy are efficacious and especially noteworthy in healthcare education and training, hence
accentuating the significance of empathy in patient contentment and treatment compliance[14,15]. The
importance of developing empathy and empathetic communication skills in clinical settings is highlighted by
this body of research, which will ultimately lead to better patient-physician relationships and improved
healthcare outcomes connection to the patient’s experiences as well as the methodical empathetic approach[9].
Empathy includes moral aspects, emotional facets, cognitive elements, and behavioral dimension[9].
According to research, is the ability to successfully communicate that one understands the viewpoint and
experiences of a client. A relevant definition of empathy in the context of clinical nursing emphasizes how
important it is to understand clients’ discomfort and provide helpful interpersonal communication[2]. It is
crucial to point out the value of the nurse’s active and emotionally involved involvement in the patient’s
situation, especially during difficult or obviously unfair circumstances, rather than emphasizing the outcome
of empathy. This calls for an emphasis on the nurse’s authentic connection to the patient’s experiences as well
as the methodical empathetic approach[9].
Social intelligence in the other part, is “the ability to understand and manage people”. Social intelligence
skills can also be spiritual so social intelligence involves self-understanding and self-management[16]. The
understanding of social dynamics, memory of social experiences, interpretation of social cues, social creativity,
and social knowledge are the five fundamental cognitive components that form the basis of the social
intelligence model[17]. Thorndike introduced the concept of “social intelligence (SI)” as an important facet of
a Person’s overall intelligence[18]. In 1920, hedefined social intelligence as the capacity to comprehend and
effectively interact with people of all ages, demonstrating wisdom in human relationships. Social intelligence
(SI) encompasses a range of abilities that facilitate the establishment and sustenance of positive relationships
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.54517/esp.v8i3.2176
3
in various social contexts. Essentially, it involves the capability to interact harmoniously with others. Boyatzis
described social intelligence competency as the skill to identify, comprehend, and apply emotional information
about others to achieve effective or exceptional performance[19]. For an extensive exploration of SI, one can
refer to the works of Goleman[20]. Honeywell[21]and Albrecht define social intelligence as the ability to
effectively interact with others and navigate intricate social relationships and environments.
Advantages of social intelligence were explored in a study involving a sample of 1407 university students.
The findings revealed a positive and statistically significant association between social intelligence and
psychological well-being, with significant negative indirect effects on psychological distress, primarily
mediated by positive relations with others[22]. Furthermore, the study highlighted that middle-aged and recently
retired individual exhibited higher levels of social intelligence compared to older adults, enabling them to
effectively optimize their retirement for successful aging. In contrast, older adults with lower social intelligence
encountered challenges in adapting to the various aspects of retirement. Consequently, there is a call for further
research to develop tailored training programs aimed at enhancing social intelligence among the elderly
population to facilitate their successful retirement[23]
Regarding the dimension of empathy was placed on the emotive dimension starting in 1960, but since
1970, empathy has been defined in its whole, adding the behavioral component to the health care professionals’
daily work[8]. Empathy includes a number of important components. With the use of both verbal and non-
verbal clues, the cognitive dimension entails comprehending the viewpoints of others and objectively
appreciating their circumstances. Altruism is a socially directed conduct that aims to lessen the struggles, issues,
and suffering of others. It is a component of the behavioral dimension. Despite their frequent interchangeability,
sympathy, empathy, and compassion have different meanings. A sense of pity for individuals that one believes
are unfairly suffering is a component of sympathy. While compassion is a complementary social emotion
spurred on by seeing others suffer and feeling compelled to offer support, empathy is a more complex
interpersonal construct that emphasizes awareness and intuition[5,24–27]. According to study on social
intelligence, Oral results from 2020 have demonstrated that social intelligence fully mediates the association
between interpersonal rumination and interpersonal negative problem resolution in college students. Put
another way, the addition of social intelligence as a mediatory variable in the structural equation model has
reduced the predictability of interpersonal negative problem resolution or interpersonal rumination.
The literature shows that due to the lack of a commonly agreed-upon definition of empathy, measuring
empathy presents a significant difficulty for researchers in disciplines like social psychology, individual
differences, and clinical psychology. Numerous techniques, including self-report tools, behavioral observation
techniques, and neuroscientific methodologies, have been used to solve this problem. The variety of
measurement techniques points to the possible advantages of integrating different techniques to produce a
thorough strategy for assessing empathy[28]. Although some areas, such genetic healthcare, have gotten less
attention, a range of empathy assessment techniques have been employed in the nursing research domain.
These tools frequently involve numerous scales across diverse settings. The inconsistency in the use of tools
emphasizes the necessity of a methodical assessment of empathy measures in nursing research to guarantee
their appropriateness for therapeutic and educational objectives[29]. Furthermore, Hogan[30] created a 64-item
self-report empathy measure, and other research like this of Allinson et al.[31] have used the Empathy Quotient
(EQ) to measure social intelligence. These developments demonstrate continuous efforts to enhance empathy
measurement in a variety of contexts and disciplines.
Regarding the measurement of social intelligence numerous studies have been conducted on the
evaluation of social intelligence, and the Tromsæ Social Intelligence Scale is one comprehensive tool for doing
so[32]. Self-reported measures of social IQ have been used in a number of investigations, and their univariate
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.54517/esp.v8i3.2176
4
correlations have shown both discriminant and convergent validity. Multiple regression studies have
highlighted the ability of these social measures to predict behavioral social effectiveness, and factor analyses
have repeatedly demonstrated the existence of a distinct Social Intelligence component. This has consequences
for future studies on social cognition and competence as well as for the creation of educational initiatives meant
to improve social skills[17]. Moreover, the MESI technique offers a different way to assess social intelligence[4],
which adds to the thorough investigation of this complex concept[33].
A part of those challenges of empathy and social intelligence are evident. A complex web of interrelated
factors poses major challenges to the development and maintenance of social intelligence and empathy. Given
this, it can be difficult to retain appropriate levels of social intelligence and empathy. A study conducted by
Neuma et al., in 2009 pointed out that in social childhood experiences have been shown to have a long-lasting
impact on individual trait empathy.
There are a lot of other challenges that we are facing because of social factors, and advancement of
technology. University of Michigan conducted a meta-analysis that analyzed and looked the path of empathy
for a period of 30 years that showed that college students today lack the empathy skills compared to previous
generations. A study done by authors Levett-Jones et al., in 2019 reported that developing empathic skills must
be an ongoing process for them throughout their academic career and into their post-employment years.
Fostering empathy and social intelligence is crucial going forward in light of these complex issues[34]. People
can help create a society that is more connected and empathic by accepting continuous development and
realizing the complex interplay of factors that influence these traits.
The objective of this study was to assess the understanding of empathic skills and intelligence among
nursing students and school pupils, taking into consideration the challenges and advantages associated with
these crucial concepts.
By looking at the real-world applications of empathy and social intelligence in the context of nursing
education, this study supports well-established theories and models in these areas. The study’s emphasis on
assessing nursing students’ and students’ understanding of intelligence and empathetic abilities is closely
related to the theoretical underpinnings of these concepts. Furthermore, this study closes the gap between
theoretical understanding and real-world application in the field of nursing education by investigating possible
relationships between social intelligence and empathetic abilities through role-playing activities. By putting
these ideas into a practical educational context, it seeks to add to the body of literature already in existence and
highlight the importance of social intelligence and empathy in nursing practice and instruction. The results of
seven studies supported the proposal that social intelligence was related to empathic skills in the US sample
population. In Studies 1st and 2nd, the highest scores on social intelligence were related to higher outcomes
for the empathic perspective, but were not related to results for emphatic fantasy, empathic disturbance, and
personal concern, perhaps due to those three types of sensitivity are less adaptive than the empathic perspective.
In Study 1st, the highest scores on social intelligence were related to self-monitoring results - that is, the ability
(a) to understand the emotions and behaviors of others, (b) to understand environmental contexts, and to
modify the self-presentation accordingly. In Study 3rd, the highest scores on social intelligence were related
to higher scores on social skills. Using a paradigm of prisoner dilemma in Study 4, we found that participants
with higher scores of emotional intelligences showed more collaboration with their partners. In Study 5th,
participants with higher scores of emotional intelligences wanted more involvement and more love, but no
more control, in relationships. In Study 6th, the highest scores of social intelligences were associated with
higher scores for marital satisfaction In Study 7, participants anticipated more satisfaction in relationships with
future high-social social partners[35]. Mayer and Salovey[36] suggest that social intelligence (as estimated in
some measure of performance) is associated with empathy and also the findings suggest that social intelligence
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.54517/esp.v8i3.2176
5
is linked to some important ways with empathic skills. A study reveals social intelligence as a factor influencing
empathy and as part of the communicative-reflective component of students’ psychological readiness for
volunteer work. This includes possessing sufficient communicative competence, which is the ability to
understand the perspectives of others and successfully express one’s own opinions. It also entails being able
to recognize both verbal and nonverbal clues during communication[37].
With regard to gender, female nursing students were appearing more sensitive compared to the male
gender[38]. They seem to be more empathic than males[39,40]. Also the theory that women are more vulnerable
to the condition of the other person is accepted and confirmed in the literature[24].
In an interesting way in the research of the American Association of Colleges (AAMC) in 2002, there was
shown to be a discernible decline in empathy during the third year of medical school. It’s interesting to note
that during a time when empathy is vitally needed, the curriculum is shifting to emphasize patient-care
activities at the same time that empathy is declining[24]. In a large cross-sectional study involving Mexican
medical students, Alcorta and a team of researchers conducted a careful and comprehensive study using a
special Mexican iteration of the JSPE designed specifically for that cultural environment. Interestingly, their
findings showed no noticeable differences in the average grades of medical students as they progressed through
different years of their medical education journey[3,41]. A recognized scholar in the field, Marcus initiated an
extensive study of empathy, humanity, and professionalism in medical education. His careful analysis revealed
a convincing revelation: students characterized by reticence and aloofness preferred the technological aspects
over the human dimension. In addition, they added a clear sense of belonging to a respected and privileged
cohort, which unfortunately contributed to a marked decline in empathy during their medical education[42].
Although studies on the effectiveness of educational interventions to increase sensitivity provide mixed results,
most of these studies emphasize the positive effects of empathy training. For example, a study by Feighny and
colleagues, who are known for their expertise in this field, provided remarkable evidence that early school-
based training had a clear positive effect on students’ empathic behavior while also increasing their
communication skills. critical skills in healthcare. However, there are studies that, despite their rigorous
methodology, do not show significant changes in sensitivity[24]. For example, a study by respected researchers
Zeldow and Daugherty showed that there was no significant change in sensitivity during high school as
measured by IRI25 subscale scores. Similarly, Markham’s detailed investigation and subsequent report
revealed that despite the incorporation of a dedicated course addressing behavioral elements within the context
of medical education, there was no discernible alteration in the students’ overall orientation towards perceiving
the patient as a unique individual, underscoring the persistent challenge of instilling a more person-centered
approach in medical training[43]. In addition, the dynamic interplay between social intelligence and empathic
prowess underwent scrupulous examination in an additional seven empirical studies, each characterized by its
unique methodological approach and theoretical framework[44].
2. Materials and methods
This research is descriptive and quantitative. Descriptive data are the review of preliminary literature on
empathic skills and social intelligence, while quantitative data includes the measurement of empathic skills
and social intelligence by means of two valid questionnaires. It is cross-sectional research.
The sample included 150 participants, 75 students of Heimerer College and 75 students of the Center of
Competence-Ferizaj, of both sexes. Participants were selected randomly.
The Empathy quotient (EQ) questionnaire was used to measure empathy skills by Simon Baron-Cohen
from the University of Cambridge. The questionnaire contains 60 questions[31].
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.54517/esp.v8i3.2176
6
The questionnaire “Messi Methodology” by the authors Frankovský and Birknerováwas used for the
measurement of social intelligence. The questionnaire contains 21 questions on a scale from 1 to 5 points[4].
The reliability of the questionnaires is as followed: EQ questionnaire had 60 questions and the Cronbach
alpha showed a good reliability 0.764, also Social Intelligence questionnaire has acceptable reliability with
Cronbach alpha 0.630.
Prior to distributing the questionnaires, formal approval was obtained from two relevant institutions. After
that, plans were made to arrange for dates and meetings with nursing students. The first contact was with their
teachers and then using the snowball sampling strategy were selected the pupils who participated. This sample
type involves asking current participants for recommendations in order to find study subjects that might be a
good fit[45]. All participants were provided with extensive details on the aims and methods of the research.
Before any data was collected, each participant had to sign a permission form that made it clear they would
remain anonymous for the duration of the study. Regarding the sample calculation was done through the
confidence level with 95%.
The data were analyzed through statistical platform for social sciences (SPSS). The analyses performed
for this study were; descriptive data analyses which was done to get the overview of the demographic data, T-
test analysis to check on differences between the groups, Regression analysis to see the impact of empathic
skills and correlation analysis to test the relationship between two groups.
Our study respected all ethical standards based on Helsinki declaration, also our team get an approval
from Heimerer college ethical committee.
Research manuscripts reporting large datasets that are deposited in a publicly available database should
specify where the data have been deposited and provide the relevant accession numbers. If the accession
numbers have not yet been obtained at the time of submission, please state that they will be provided during
review. They must be provided prior to publication.
Interventionary studies involving animals or humans, and other studies that re-quire ethical approval,
must list the authority that provided approval and the corresponding ethical approval code.
3. Results
Table 1. T-test analysis for differences between student and pupils’ groups in relation to empathic skills and social intelligence.
Students
Pupils
Scale
M
DS
M
DS
Sh.l
t-test
sig.
Manipulation
14.1
5.8
13.8
4.8
120
0.114
0.799
Empathy
21.1
6.9
21.7
4.6
120
0.538
0.592
Social irritation
15.6
4.9
16.3
5.4
118
0.622
0.535
Social intelligence
51.1
13.9
51.6
9.5
100
0.223
0.824
Empathic skills
133.3
21.9
131.6
16.4
91
0.392
0.696
In Table 1, through t-test analysis there have been no statistically significant differences between students
and pupils in relation to empathic skills and social intelligence, including social intelligence dimensions such
as manipulation, empathy, and social excitement. In the terms of means regarding manipulation it seems to be
more expressed among the students with a standard deviation of 5.8. By the other part regarding the empathy
and social irritation dimension it seems to be more express among pupils with a standard deviation of 4.6 for
empathy and 5.4 for social irritation.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.54517/esp.v8i3.2176
7
Table 2. T-test, Gender differences in relation to empathic skills and social intelligence.
F
M
Scale
M
SD
M
DS
Sh.l
t-test
sig.
Manipulation
14
5.4
56
5.05
114
0.347
0.729
Empathy
20.8
4.7
21.6
6.9
114
0.153
0.442
Social irritation
16.4
4.6
15.5
5.8
113
0.802
0.424
Social intelligence
51.3
10.9
51
10.9
95
0.149
0.882
Empathic skills
133.6
19.3
130.3
17.7
89
0.860
0.392
In Table 2, t-test analysis has shown that there are no significant differences between male and female in
relation to empathic skills and social intelligence, including dimensions that are measured through a social
intelligence questionnaire such as manipulation, empathy and social excitement. However, if we look at the
means of the dimensions, we can say that manipulation and empathy is a little more expressed among males
with a standard deviation of 5.05 for the manipulation dimension and 6.9 standard deviation for empathy
dimension. By the other side social irritation is a little more expressed among females with a standard deviation
of 5.8.
Table 3. Regression analysis—Explanation of empathy through social intelligence, gender and age.
Model
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
Social intelligence
0.517
0.186
0.316
2.775
0.007
Groups
−3.651
4.517
−0.093
−0.808
0.422
Gender
0.020
0.013
0.170
1.483
0.143
R = 12% variance Model p = 0.028*.
In Table 3, through linear regression analysis it turns out to be statistically. Significant model where the
dependent variable was empathic abilities and as predictor or explanatory variables was social intelligence
with its dimensions, age and gender. The model explains 12% of the variance and is significant with p = .028
where from the three explanatory factors only social intelligence is significant with p = 0.007 **, while gender
and age do not appear to be significant explanatory for empathic abilities.
Table 4. Correlation analysis between empathic skills and social intelligence.
Correlation
A
B
A. Social intelligence
-
-
B. Empathic skills
0.301*
-
In Table 4: through correlation analysis, there has been a positive correlation between empathic and social
intelligence with r = 0.301 and p = 0.010 *. This implies that those who possess a higher degree of empathic
intelligence also typically display a higher degree of social intelligence.
4. Discussion
The research findings affirm our initial hypothesis, demonstrating a clear correlation between empathic
skills and social intelligence. Nicola S. et al undertook a comprehensive examination of this relationship across
seven distinct studies. Across the board, the results from these seven studies provided consistent support for
the proposition that social intelligence is closely tied to empathic skills within the US sample population. In
the first and second studies, it was observed that individuals with the highest scores in social intelligence
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.54517/esp.v8i3.2176
8
exhibited greater proficiency in adopting an empathic perspective. However, this correlation was not evident
in the case of emphatic fantasy, empathic distress, and personal concern. It is postulated that these three forms
of empathy might be less adaptable or universally applicable compared to the empathic perspective, hence
explaining this observed distinction in outcomes. This highlights the nuanced nature of empathy and its various
dimensions, emphasizing the significance of further investigation into their contextual relevance[44]. The
existence of this correlation was further corroborated through a study conducted among Finnish
schoolchildren[46]. Moreover, Mayer and Salovey posit that social intelligence, gauged through various
performance metrics, demonstrates an association with empathy[36], These collective findings strongly indicate
that there exists a noteworthy interconnection between social intelligence and empathic skills, manifesting in
several crucial dimensions. This implies that proficiency in social intelligence may potentially contribute
significantly to the development and expression of empathic abilities.
Based on the outcomes derived from our research endeavor, it has been established that there exists no
statistically significant disparity when comparing different age groups. This implies that our second hypothesis,
which posited that individuals aged 19 and above would exhibit greater levels of empathy compared to those
under 19, has not been substantiated. A cross-sectional study focusing on medical students in Mexico, as
conducted by Alcorta et al., employed a Mexican-adapted version of the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy
(JSPE). Interestingly, this study did not yield any substantial fluctuations in the median empathy scores across
various academic years within the medical curriculum[47]. In contrast, it is worth noting that there was a positive
correlation found between age and empathy levels among Chinese students[48]. This finding introduces an
intriguing dimension to the discussion, suggesting potential cultural or contextual influences on the
relationship between age and empathic tendencies.
Regarding the distinctions between students and pupils with regard to social intelligence and empathic
skills, including social intelligence components like manipulation, empathy, and social excitement where there
was no difference between them, this is another significant discovery. Although research findings on the effects
of education to promote empathy are inconclusive, most of these studies result positive from empathetic
training[42]. For example, a study by Feighny and his colleagues found that training in the early years of the
medical school could increase the empathy of behavior among students[49]. In a qualitative study, Wilkes et al
reported an increase in empathy of medical students when they had experience in hospitalization. There are
other studies that do not show any significant change[50]. For example, Zeldow and Daugherty[43] found no
change in empathic skills during high school medical school and Markham reported that a course on behavior
at the medical school did not change orientation towards the patient as a person[51]. In another study empathy
scores drop as the number of college years increases[52]. In other part according to different studies empathy
and emotional intelligence are qualities that people develop throughout their school careers[53]. According to a
study done among medical students, the length of their education has an adverse relationship with how
empathic they are[54]. Another study discovered that emotional intelligence scores rise as students advance
through university, with fourth-year nursing students having the highest results. A study discovered that
individuals’ empathy scores improved the longer they had attended university[55]. Moreover, a study indicated
that the medical curriculum has an increased focus on developing empathy as the educational years progress
and this is why students understand the importance of empathy in the patient-physician relationship. Finally, a
study investigated that tendency towards higher levels of empathy in senior year medical students is explained
through clinical training and communication skills[56]. Unstable results may be due to or not the specifics for
measuring empathy used in different studies to assess the effectiveness of educational programs or a lack of
clarity or specificity in educational objectives.
In our study gender also was shown not significant in relationship to their empathic skills. This result is
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.54517/esp.v8i3.2176
9
inconsistent with other studies that found that women have much higher sensitivity scores compared to males
like the research with nursing students in Greece[38] and China that shows that women exhibit empathic skills
more easily than men[48]. Also, in another study female healthcare students scored higher levels of empathy in
comparison with male students. It was shown a significant relation between gender and empathy levels[57]. A
study concluded that there is more activation in brain regions of female participants containing mirror neurons
and anatomical differences while comparing with male participants that participated in the study. From this
study it was also shown that women had more mimicry compared to men. In comparison with men, women
reported two main differences, they have and produce more facial mimicry, so they have greater levels of brain
activation regions that happen during the empathic process[58]. Another study showed that women are better at
recognizing emotions because they have more mimicry or facial expression[59] women are better at recognizing
emotions because they have more mimicry or facial expression. The others support these findings conducts
that woman may be more reliant on facial feedback to recognize emotions[60]. A study done by Bertakis et al.
shows that those females are more receptive to emotional signals compared to males[61]. On the flip side, our
findings align with Deng et al.’s research, indicating that both male and female nursing students generally
exhibit comparable levels of empathy and problem-solving abilities[62].
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, this study provides strong support for the original theory that social intelligence and
empathetic abilities are closely related. The study is noteworthy because it highlights the need of differentiating
between subtleties in different forms of empathy. It also clarifies how social intelligence is specifically
associated with particular aspects of empathy, which enhances our comprehension of these intricate
psychological concepts.
Furthermore, this study disproves the notion that empathy varies with age by showing that there are no
appreciable differences in empathy abilities among age groups. This discovery affects how we see and handle
the development of empathy in a variety of age groups. Even though gender was not a significant component
in this study, the research emphasizes the significance of recognizing gender disparities in empathic skills.
These findings highlight the need for greater research and customized interventions to improve empathy in a
range of demographics, with the ultimate goal of creating a society that is both socially conscious and empathic.
Also, the findings will ultimately contribute to a more socially conscious and empathetic society by having an
impact on the creation of empathy training and educational initiatives for all age groups and genders including
the professional fields
Author contributions
Conceptualization, BH, VH and BT; methodology, FG; software, FG; validation, FG and KA; formal
analysis, FG; investigation, BT; resources, BH; data curation, BT; writing—original draft preparation, BT, VH
and BK; writing—review and editing, AH; visualization, BK; supervision, BT and BH; project administration,
AH; funding acquisition, BH. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Albrecht AR. Integrating railway track maintenance and train timetables. Published online 2009.
2. Cuff BM, Brown SJ, Taylor L, Howat DJ. Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review 2016; 8(2): 144–
153. doi: 10.1177/1754073914558466
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.54517/esp.v8i3.2176
10
3. Kliszcz J, Hebanowski M, Rembowski J. Emotional and cognitive empathy in medical schools. Academic
Medicine 1998; 73(5): 541. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199805000-00025
4. Frankovský M, Birknerová Z. Measuring social intelligence—The MESI methodology. Asian Social Science 2014;
10(6): 90. doi: 10.5539/ass.v10n6p90
5. King Jr SH. The structure of empathy in social work practice. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social
Environment 2011; 21(6): 679–695. doi: 10.1080/10911359.2011.583516
6. Hasgul E, Serpen AS. Empathy’s importance in social work practices. In: Papanikos GT (editor). An Anthology of
Social Themes. Athens Institute for Education and Research; 2016. pp. 213–222.
7. King Jr S, Holosko MJ. The development and initial validation of the empathy scale for social workers. Research
on Social Work Practice 2012; 22(2): 174–185. doi: 10.1177/1049731511417136
8. Batson CD. The Altruism Question: Toward a Social-Psychological Answer. Psychology Press; 2014.
9. Reynolds WJ, Scott B. Empathy: A crucial component of the helping relationship. Journal of Psychiatric and
Mental Health Nursing 1999; 6(5): 363–370. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2850.1999.00228.x
10. Rumble AC, Van Lange PAM, Parks CD. The benefits of empathy: When empathy may sustain cooperation in
social dilemmas. European Journal of Social Psychology 2010; 40(5): 856–866. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.659
11. Ferguson E. Empathy: “The good, the bad and the ugly.” In: Wood AM, Johnson J (editors). The Wiley Handbook
of Positive Clinical Psychology. Wiley Blackwell; 2016. pp. 103–123.
12. Bove LL. Empathy for service: Benefits, unintended consequences, and future research agenda. Journal of
Services Marketing 2019; 33(1): 31–43. doi: 10.1108/jsm-10-2018-0289
13. Decety J. Empathy in medicine: What it is, and how much we really need it. The American Journal of Medicine
2020; 133(5): 561–566. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.12.012
14. Winter R, Issa E, Roberts N, et al. Assessing the effect of empathy-enhancing interventions in health education
and training: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 2020; 10(9): e036471. doi:
10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036471
15. Walsh S, O’Neill A, Hannigan A, Harmon D. Patient-rated physician empathy and patient satisfaction during pain
clinic consultations. Irish Journal of Medical Science 2019; 188(4): 1379–1384. doi: 10.1007/s11845-019-01999-
5
16. Cancio EJ, Albrecht SF, Johns BH. Defining administrative support and its relationship to the attrition of teachers
of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children 2013; 36(4): 71–94.
doi: 10.1353/etc.2013.0035
17. Weis S, Süß HM. Social intelligence—A review and critical discussion of measurement concepts. In: Schulze R,
Roberts RD (editors). Emotional intelligence: An International Handbook. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers; 2005. pp.
203–230.
18. Thorndike EL. Intelligence and Its Uses. Harper’s Magazine; 1920. pp. 227–235.
19. Boyatzis RE. Competencies as a behavioral approach to emotional intelligence. Journal of Management
Development 2009; 28(9): 749–770. doi: 10.1108/02621710910987647
20. Goleman D. The socially intelligent. Educational Leadership 2006; 64(1): 76–81.
21. Honeywill R. The Man Problem: Destructive Masculinity in Western Culture. Springer; 2016
22. Azañedo CM, Sastre S, Artola T, et al. Social intelligence and psychological distress: Subjective and
psychological well-being as mediators. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020;
17(21): 7785. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17217785
23. Sanwal T, Sareen P. The relevance of social intelligence for effective optimization of retirement and successful
ageing. Ageing International 2021; 48(1): 247–262. doi: 10.1007/s12126-021-09469-z
24. Hojat M. Empathy in Patient Care: Antecedents, Development, Measurement, and Outcomes. Springer; 2007.
25. Jolliffe D, Farrington DP. Development and validation of the basic empathy scale. Journal of Adolescence 2006;
29(4): 589–611. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010
26. Sinclair S, Beamer K, Hack TF, et al. Sympathy, empathy, and compassion: A grounded theory study of palliative
care patients’ understandings, experiences, and preferences. Palliative Medicine 2017; 31(5): 437–447. doi:
10.1177/0269216316663499
27. Preckel K, Kanske P, Singer T. On the interaction of social affect and cognition: empathy, compassion and theory
of mind. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2018; 19: 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.07.010
28. Neumann M, Bensing J, Mercer S, et al. Analyzing the “nature” and “specific effectiveness” of clinical empathy:
A theoretical overview and contribution towards a theory-based research agenda. Patient Education and
Counseling 2009; 74(3): 339–346. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.013
29. Yu J, Kirk M. Measurement of empathy in nursing research: systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing
2008; 64(5): 440–454. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04831.x
30. Hogan R. Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1969; 33(3): 307–
316. doi: 10.1037/h0027580
31. Allison C, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright SJ, et al. Psychometric analysis of the Empathy Quotient (EQ).
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.54517/esp.v8i3.2176
11
Personality and Individual Differences 2011; 51(7): 829–835. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.005
32. Silvera D, Martinussen M, Dahl TI. The Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale, a self‐report measure of social
intelligence. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 2001; 42(4): 313–319. doi: 10.1111/1467-9450.00242
33. Ford ME, Tisak MS. A further search for social intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology 1983; 75(2): 196–
206. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.75.2.196
34. Levett-Jones T, Lathlean J. Belongingness: A prerequisite for nursing students’ clinical learning. Nurse Education
in Practice 2008; 8(2): 103–111. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2007.04.003
35. Schutte NS, Malouff JM, Bhullar N. The assessing emotions scale. In: Stough C, Saklofske DH, Parker JDA
(editors). Assessing Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Research, and Applications. Springer; 2009. pp. 119–134.
36. Mayer JD, Salovey P. Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of feelings. Applied and
Preventive Psychology 1995; 4(3): 197–208. doi: 10.1016/S0962-1849(05)80058-7
37. Onufriieva L, Chaikovska O, Kobets O, et al. Social intelligence as a factor of volunteer activities by future
medical workers. Journal of History Culture and Art Research 2020; 9(1): 84–95. doi: 10.7596/taksad.v9i1.2536
38. Ouzouni C, Nakakis K. An exploratory study of student nurses’ empathy. Health Science Journal 2012; 6(3): 534–
552.
39. Ardenghi S, Russo S, Luciani M, et al. The association between dispositional mindfulness and empathy among
undergraduate nursing students: A multicenter cross-sectional study. Current Psychology 2023; 42(18): 15132–
15140. doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-02829-1
40. Jia-Ru J, Yan-Xue Z, Wen-Nv H. Empathy ability of nursing students: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Medicine 2022; 101(32): e30017. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000030017
41. Rogers CR. Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. The Counseling Psychologist 1975; 5(2): 2–10. doi:
10.1177/001100007500500202
42. Marcus ER. Empathy, humanism, and the professionalization process of medical education. Academic Medicine
1999; 74(11): 1211–1215. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199911000-00014
43. Zeldow PB, Daugherty SR. The stability and attitudinal correlates of warmth and caring in medical students.
Medical Education 1987; 21(4): 353–357. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1987.tb00375.x
44. Schutte NS, Malouff JM, Bobik C, et al. Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. The Journal of Social
Psychology 2001; 141(4): 523–536. doi: 10.1080/00224540109600569
45. Polit DF, Beck CT. Essentials of Nursing Research: Appraising Evidence for Nursing Practice. Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins; 2020.
46. Kaukiainen A, Björkqvist K, Lagerspetz K, et al. The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three
types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression
1999; 25(2): 81–89. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1999)25:2<81::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-M
47. Alcorta-Garza A, González-Guerrero JF, Tavitas-Herrera SE, et al. Validation of the Jefferson Medical Empathy
Scale in Mexican medical students (Spanish). Salud Mental 2005; 28(5): 57–63.
48. Huang L, Thai J, Zhong Y, et al. The positive association between empathy and self-esteem in Chinese medical
students: A multi-institutional study. Frontiers in Psychology 2019; 10: 1921. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01921
49. Feighny K, Arnold L, Monaco M, et al. In pursuit of empathy and its relationship to physician communication
skills: Multidimensional empathy training for medical students. Annual of Behavioral Medicine 1998; 5: 13–21.
50. Wilkes M, Milgrom E, Hoffman JR. Towards more empathic medical students: A medical student hospitalization
experience. Medical Education 2002; 36(6): 528–533. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01230.x
51. Markham B. Can a behavioral science course change medical students’ attitudes? Journal of Psychiatric
Education 1979; 3(1): 44–54. doi: 10.1007/BF03399722
52. Ward J, Cody J, Schaal M, Hojat M. The empathy enigma: An empirical study of decline in empathy among
undergraduate nursing students. Journal of Professional Nursing 2012; 28(1): 34–40. doi:
10.1016/j.profnurs.2011.10.007
53. Chen D, Lew R, Hershman W, Orlander J. A cross-sectional measurement of medical student empathy. Journal of
General Internal Medicine 2007; 22(10): 1434–1438. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0298-x
54. Khalifesoltani F, Nilchian F, Yosefi A, Hosseinpour K. Empathy levels in undergraduate and postgraduate dental
students in Isfahan Faculty of Dentistry in 2011. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad Pakistan 2012;
753–762.
55. Hajibabaee F, Farahani MA, Ameri Z, et al. The relationship between empathy and emotional intelligence among
Iranian nursing students. International Journal of Medical Education 2018; 9: 239–243. doi:
10.5116/ijme.5b83.e2a5
56. Costa P, Salgueira AP, Magalhães E, Costa MJ. Empathy in senior year and first year medical students: A cross-
sectional study. BMC Medical Education 2011; 11(1): 52. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-11-52
57. Hoffman ML. Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin 1977; 84(4): 712–722.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.84.4.712
58. Lakin JL, Chartrand TL, Arkin RM. I am too just like you: Nonconscious mimicry as an automatic behavioral
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.54517/esp.v8i3.2176
12
response to social exclusion. Psychological Science 2008; 19(8): 816–822. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2008.02162.x
59. Sonnby–Borgström M. Automatic mimicry reactions as related to differences in emotional empathy. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology 2002; 43(5): 433–443. doi: 10.1111/1467-9450.00312
60. Niedenthal PM, Mermillod M, Maringer M, Hess U. The Simulation of Smiles (SIMS) model: Embodied
simulation and the meaning of facial expression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2010; 33(6): 417–433. doi:
10.1017/s0140525x10000865
61. Bertakis KD, Helms LJ, Callahan EJ, et al. The influence of gender on physician practice style. Medical Care
1995; 33(4): 407–416. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199504000-00007
62. Deng X, Chen S, Li X, et al. Gender differences in empathy, emotional intelligence and problem-solving ability
among nursing students: A cross-sectional study. Nurse Education Today 2023; 120: 105649. doi:
10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105649
