Cited by 489Social and Intergroup PsychologyPsychometric Methodologies and TestingCultural Differences and Values

The Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy: Development, validation, and reliability.

Wang, Yu-Wei, Davidson, M. Meghan, Yakushko, Oksana F., Savoy, Holly Bielstein, Tan, Jeffrey A., Bleier, Joseph K.·2003·Journal of Counseling Psychology

Abstract

Summary and Overall Discussion The purpose of this study was to develop a scale to quantita-tively and effectively measure the construct of ethnocultural em-pathy. On the basis of a review of the literature, ethnoculturalempathy as a construct was derived from definitions of generalempathy, multiculturalism, and cultural empathy. Our effort tocreate a three-factor scale was partially supported by the results ofthe factor analysis. Although there are parallels between the in-tended definition of the three factors and the final results, the factoranalysis revealed the presence of a fourth factor. The factorscontributed to the amount of variance accounted for by the scale inthe following order, from strongest to weakest: Empathic Feelingand Expression, Empathic Perspective Taking, Acceptance of Cul-tural Differences, and Empathic Awareness. The four-factor solu-tion suggests that there are four distinct components underlyingscores on the SEE.The four factors of the SEE closely replicate the theoreticalconstructs of empathy found in the literature and bring new un-derstanding to the construct of ethnocultural empathy. Duan andHill (1996) suggested that the concept of general empathy consistsof two components: empathic emotions and intellectual empathy.The most comprehensive model of cross-cultural empathy, dis-cussed by Ridley and Lingle (1996), includes communicativeempathy in addition to the similar emotional and intellectualaspects. The four factors revealed in the present stu…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.221

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Wang et al. (2003) found that the four subscales of the Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy adequately measured the intended constructs, with the four factors sharing approximately 81% of the total variance.

    “the CFA results from Wang et al. (2003) suggested the four subscales of the Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy were adequately measuring the intended constructs, and the four factors shared approximately 81% of the total variance.”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 90 · Cited by 489

Authors
Wang, Y.-W., Davidson, M. M., Yakushko, O. F., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A., & Bleier, J. K.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
Venue
Journal of Counseling Psychology
Published
2003-04
Volume
50
Issue
2
Pages
221-234
ISSN
  • 0022-0167 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2168
OpenAlex
W2071500890
Cited by
489
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 14
FWCI
7.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Counseling Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
Keywords
ethnocultural empathy, empathy measurement, cross-cultural empathy, perspective taking, multiculturalism, scale development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review