Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,493

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development of an empathy scale.

Hogan, Robert·1969·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
DOI 10.1037/h0027580
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The concept of empathy—the intellectual or imaginative apprehension of another's condition or state of mind— is central for understanding a broad range of social phenomena including, in particular, moral development. Within this latter context, an empathic disposition can be regarded as capacity to adopt a broad moral perspective, that is, to take the moral point of view. This paper discusses development of a 64-item self-report measure of empathy, constructed by comparing responses of groups with high- and low-rated empathy, using combined MMPI-CPI item pool. After providing evidence concerning scale's reliability and validity, an attempt is made to show its relevance for specifically moral conduct by relating empathy scale scores to real life indexes of socially appropriate behavior and to certain previously wellvalidated measures of personality. Some form of empathic disposition, roletaking ability, or social sensitivity is assumed by all approaches to personality which take interpersonal situation as a major focus of concern. Accordingly, most writers in role-theoretical tradition (Cottrell, 1942; Gough, 1948; Mead, 1934; Sarbin, 1968) have given careful attention to this aspect of social functioning. Mead, for example, has argued that role-taking ability is key variable in social and moral development; extending this line of reasoning he equates g factor in intelligence with social sensitivity, origins of which can be found in central nervous system. In a similar vein, Cottrell and Dymond (1949) also maintained that empathy is basic process in all social interaction. Empathy, seen as an everyday manifestation of disposition to adopt a broad moral

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0027580

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hogan, R.
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1969
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
307-316
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
DOI
10.1037/h0027580
OpenAlex
W2146425356
Cited by
1,493
References
1
FWCI
14.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.