AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 38, pages 150165 (2012)

Feeling and Thinking of Others: Affective and Cognitive

Empathy and Emotion Comprehension in
Prosocial/Hostile Preschoolers
Carmen Belacchi1 and Eleonora Farina2
1
2

University of Urbino, Human Sciences, Urbino, Italy

University of Milano Bicocca, Human Sciences for Education, Milan, Italy

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
This study aims at investigating the affective and cognitive components of empathy in relation to both emotion comprehension
and prosocial/hostile behaviors in preschoolers. A total of 219 children (54% boys; aged between 3 and 6: mean age 4.10) and
20 teachers (two for each class: group A and group B) took part in this research. Pupils empathy and hostile/prosocial roles
were assessed by teacher reports [Belacchi and Farina, 2010] and childrens emotion comprehension by a nonverbal test [Test of
Emotion Comprehension: Pons and Harris, 2000; adapted by Albanese and Molina; 2008]. As expected, the results showed a
significant influence of gender, with girls being more empathic than boys, according to all of the teachers perception. Contrary
to our expectations, no systematic age influence emerged. Regarding the relations of childrens emotion comprehension with both
empathy measures and their prosocial/hostile attitudes, we have found: (1) a low significant relation with the total empathy measure,
according to all the teachers, but with the cognitive empathy only according to teachers B; (2) a robust negative relationship of
both affective and cognitive empathy with Hostile roles and with Outsider role, contrary to a positive correlation of only affective
empathy with Prosocial roles. No relationships emerged between empathy measures and Victim role. Aggr. Behav. 38:150165, 2012.

C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Keywords: affective and cognitive empathy; emotion comprehension; prosocial and hostile behavior; preschool age

INTRODUCTION

Empathy has been defined as a multidimensional

construct, including both affective and cognitive components. The first regards the experiencing of other
peoples emotions [Mehrabian and Epstein, 1972],
whereas the second deals with the ability to understand others perspective on emotional situations
[Hogan, 1969]. Both components are essential to respond adequately to the emotional-expressive behavior of others. Empathy is regarded as a basic aptitude for the development of emotional competence,
in particular, for the promotion of social bonds, despite some differences in stressing the importance of
its cognitive or affective aspects [Saarni, 1999]. Childrens empathic behavior, in both its affective and
cognitive components, emerges and develops during
preschool years [Eisenberg et al., 1990; Radke-Yarrow
et al., 1983] and has its precursors in childrens attentiveness to emotional-expressive cues and in the
emotion contagion effect, detected in early infancy
[Fischer et al., 1990]. Strayer [1987] described the development of empathy from a less-than-conscious re-

sponsiveness to other persons emotional-expressive

behavior during early infancy to the emergence of correct self-other boundaries in school years. It has been
empirically proved that, by 18 months of age, toddlers begin to make simple, but appropriate, attempts
to comfort another person in distress [Dunn, 1988;
Zahn-Waxler and Radke-Yarrow, 1982]. By the end
of the second year of age, most toddlers comprehend
the causes of others distress, and begin to enact more
sophisticated interventions to placateor torment
them [de Rosnay et al., 2008; Dunn and Munn, 1985;
Zahn-Waxler et al., 1992]. Actually, this developmental pattern is confirmed by the mental state talk, the
particular form of speech characterized by terms referring to mental states. From 24 months of age, children spontaneously refer to psychological states in
Correspondence to: Carmen Belacchi, Department of Human Sciences, Via Saffi, 15, University of Urbino, Urbino 61029, Italy. E-mail:
carmen.belacchi@ uniurb.it

Received 5 May 2011; Accepted 1 November 2011

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI: 10.1002/ab.21415


C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Empathy and Emotion Comprehension in Preschoolers

order to explain peoples behavior [Dunn and Brown,

1993; Wellman, 2002]. Independently of categories
of inner state talk (emotional or cognitive), longitudinal studies indicate that children initially refer
particularly to their own internal world and, only
starting from 5 to 6 years old, they are also able to
refer to others mental states [Brown and Dunn, 1996;
Hughes and Dunn, 1998]. This latter ability seems to
be crucial for the development of a theory of mind
[Hughes et al., 2007].
Several empirical evidences acknowledged a strong
relationship between high levels of empathy and
prosocial behavior and between lack of empathy and
aggressive and antisocial behavior particularly in primary school children and in adolescents. Very few
studies have investigated what happen in preschool
age.
The main aim of the present study is to explore
the affective and cognitive components of empathy in
preschoolers with respect both to their emotion comprehension and to their tendency to assume prosocial
and hostile behaviors.

EMPATHY AND PROSOCIAL/HOSTILE BEHAVIOR

Prosocial behavior includes all the acts aiming

at promoting others well-being, such as assistance,
comfort, cooperation, while hostile behaviors are
aimed at offending or attack others [Mussen and
Eisenberg-Berg, 1977; Tani, 1991]. In particular, in the
literature on bullying in which participants can show
different behaviors, we define as prosocial all kinds of
altruistic behaviors, that is, any conducts aimed at materially or psychologically helping victims; whereas,
hostile behaviors all kinds of direct or indirect aggression aimed at harming weaker peers [Olweus,
1993].
The relationship between empathy and prosocial
behavior has been traditionally studied both in the
framework of cognitive development and in relationship to moral thinking.
From a cognitive point of view, the awareness of
aspects featuring emotional experiences is crucial in
order to promote empathic responses to emotional
events. Strayer [1989], in her analysis of empathic behavior from infancy to late adolescence, proved that
individuals abilities to mentally represent emotioneliciting events or peoples internal states have a crucial impact on their empathic responses. This is also
proved by the research on childrens empathy in relation to prosocial behavior [e.g., Belacchi, 2008; Eisenberg, 1992; Eisenberg and Fabes, 1998; Hoffman,
2000; Kurtines and Gewirtz, 1991].

151

Studies by Cialdini et al., [1997] with adolescents

supported the idea that empathy facilitates the projection of self into the other distressed person, resulting
in a sort of self-interested prosocial behavior. On the
other hand, other studies prove that empathy elicits
genuine altruistic behavior, promoting active support
for the victim, in different developmental phases (in
university students: Batson et al., 1997; in adolescents:
Gini et al., 2007, 2008; in primary school children:
Belacchi, 2008]. From a developmental point of view,
Saarni [1999] tried to reconcile these two visions, assuming that the self-other merging finds its origins
in the early attachment relationship [Zahn-Waxler,
1991] and is crucial for an early sense of empathy and
caring. With age, the concern for others well-being
becomes more autonomous and the projection into
others feelings and beliefs is not necessary.
Hoffman [1982, 2000] studying the link between empathy and early moral development, found that a situation of moral injustice may elicitin the observera
sense of personal responsibility, which could turn into
a feeling of guilt over inaction. Therefore, empathy is
viewed as a precondition for the development of justice belief systems, moral judgment, and altruistic behavior [Eisenberg, 1986; Eisenberg et al., 1983]. Some
recent findings evidenced that preschoolers are also
able to conform their behavior to what is commonly
socially approved, and this may be influenced by the
childrens ability to understand others beliefs and
emotions [Lane et al., 2010]. Individuals who comprehend anothers negative emotional reaction (e.g.,
distress) to their aggressive or antisocial behavior, may
be inhibited and less inclined to continue with this behavior or act in an antisocial or aggressive way in the
future [Feshbach, 1975]. This assumption could lead
to correlate scarce empathic abilities with antisocial
behavior. Individuals with low empathy generally fail
to respond in the alleviation of distress and discomfort in others [Hare, 1999; Jolliffe and Farrington,
2006]. Various studiesnot surprisinglysuggested
that low empathy may be the main cause of bullying [e.g., Olweus, 1991; Rigby, 1996], although there
is controversy about bullies social competences. This
could be due to the different kinds of aggressive individuals taken into consideration: general aggressors [Crick and Dodge, 1999] or more strategic and
skilled aggressors, the ringleaders [Sutton et al.,
1999]. On the other hand, these results reflect different interpretations of bullying behaviors: in the first
case [e.g., Crick and Dodge, 1994, 1999], these are
strictly linked to poor social information processing
and social problem-solving abilities; in the second,
particularly in ringleader ones, they are expressions
of normal ability to understand others mental states
Aggr. Behav.

152

Belacchi and Farina

(beliefs, intentions, desires, emotions), which is used

for personal advantage [Andreou, 2004, 2006; Sutton
and Keogh, 2000; Sutton et al., 1999]. In other words,
bullies may be able in cognitive perspective taking,
but not in sharing emotions with the victims, being
characterized by what Sutton et al. [1999] defined as
theory of nasty minds. Therefore, in line with this
last view and contrary to conventional stereotypes, it
seems that victims, not bullies, are poor mind readers. Particularly, victims of relational bullying fail in
predicting and facing bullies manipulations [Woods
et al., 2009].
Another interesting interpretation of aggressive behavior focuses on the different choices for strategies of
resource control in the peer group in an evolutionary
perspective: some individuals prefer coercive strategies (coercive controllers), others prosocial strategies
(prosocial controllers), another subgroup of individuals is defined as bi-strategic in that they employ both
kinds of strategies [Hawley, 2002; 2003]. Teachers
generally identify both coercive controllers and bistrategic controllers as aggressive, also in preschool
years, even if the latter group was at the same time
morally mature and popular among peers [Hawley, 2003]. Notwithstanding the amount of research,
the link between bullying behavior and empathic responsiveness remains unclear. Endresen and Olweus
[2001], for example, found a negative weak relation
between empathy and bullying (r = .15), both measured with self-report instruments, in a sample of
Norwegian pre-adolescents. This kind of methodology might have the limitation of provoking biases
concerning social desirability. Warden and Mackinnon [2003] using peer nomination in relation with
empathic responsiveness in children aged 910 years,
found a difference between prosocial children and bullies concerning empathy (in favor of the former), but
this difference was due more to gender (girls are more
empathic than boys, more frequently nominated as
bullies). Gini et al. [2005] in a group of adolescents,
found a negative relation between empathy (in particular its affective component) and pro-bullying roles,
whereas a weaker positive relationship with prosocial
roles; no link with the role of victim. Another study
[Gini et al., 2007], confirmed those results, but only
for male adolescent participants.
Recently, Belacchi [2008] proposed a new, more
symmetrical, model for participants roles in bullying,
adding two roles to the six ones (Bully, Assistant, Reinforcer, Defender, Outsider, Victim) included in the
Participant Roles Questionnaire (PRQ) by Salmivalli
et al. [1996]: Mediator (someone who actively tries
to reconciliate the Bully with the Victim) and Consoler (someone who tries to mitigate the effects of the
Aggr. Behav.

bullying, comforting the Victim). This new model

which disentangle also the Outsider role, indirectly
supporting the bullyencloses a latent structure articulated in four macro-roles: Hostile Roles (Bully,
Assistant, and Reinforcer), Prosocial Roles (Defender,
Consoler, and Mediator), Victim, and Outsider. In the
same study, Belacchi [2008] investigated the relationships between prosocial/hostile roles and Empathic
Responsiveness in primary school children, confirming that high levels of empathy (as a global measure of
affective and cognitive components) were directly associated with altruistic behavior and inversely related
to hostile behavior. Moreover, with regard to the relationship between the tendency to assume socially desirable and prosocial/hostile behaviors among peers,
the negative influence of the desire to please others on
hostile behavior has been shown, whereas there was
no influence of this factor on prosocial behavior.
The results of studies on the relationships between
empathy and antisocial behavior in general, are not
in complete agreement. Three meta-analyses tried to
summarize the main findings on this issue. Miller
and Eisenberg [1988], reviewing 43 studies using diverse methods to measure empathy (purely in its affective terms) and antisocial behavior, found a general low significant negative correlation (r = .18)
between aggressive behavior and empathy measures.
In particular, the results of research with preschoolers are inconsistent: studies using picture/story measures of empathy revealed quite the same proportion
of nonsignificant, negative, and also positive relationships with aggressive behavior. The more recent
meta-analysis by Jolliffe and Farrington [2004] including 35 studies on the link between criminal
behavior and empathy (in both its affective and cognitive dimensions), confirmed the negative relationship between offending and empathy, stronger for the
cognitive one. This link completely disappeared after
controlling for intelligence and socioeconomic status. Such evidences seem to be in contrast with both
the above-mentioned studies about the high mindreading abilities of bullies [e.g., Sutton et al., 1999]
and those of a study by Jolliffe and Farrington [2006]
on adolescents using self-report questionnaires for
bullying and empathy. The results highlighted a significant negative relationship of bullying with only
affective empathy. Finally, Lovett and Sheffield [2007]
evidenced a general inconsistency of the literature on
the relationships between affective empathy and aggressive behavior. In particular, they noticed that a
clear negative association could be found only in older
children and adolescents: the few studies with young
children, using behavioral measures or questionnaires
for empathy, showed really inconsistent results.

Empathy and Emotion Comprehension in Preschoolers

Summarizing, it is clear that the research on empathy and prosocial/hostile behavior calls for further
empirical investigation at different ages, particularly
in preschool years, up to now little examined, using
appropriate methods.
THE ROLE OF EMOTION COMPREHENSION

Emotion understanding is a core component of

a general sociocognitive comprehension, which allows children to catch others perspectives, comprising their desires, beliefs, intentions, and emotions [De
Rosnay and Hughes, 2006]. Those abilities proved to
be fundamental to an adequate responsiveness during interactions, in particular having to face others
distress [Stewart and Marvin, 1984]. Emotion understanding is a very complex construct dealing with the
comprehension of the nature, causes, consequences,
and possibilities to regulate emotions. By bringing
together a substantial body of research, Pons et al.
[2004] classified at least nine different components of
childrens emotion understanding. These components
are increasingly complex and develop with age: they
have been grouped into three hierarchically organized
levels, on the basis of the research conducted on a
group of English children using the Test of Emotion
ComprehensionTEC [Pons and Harris, 2000]. The
understanding of different external features of emotion (facial expressions, situational causes, reminders)
emerges at around 45 years of age; the understanding
of various mental aspects of emotion (impact of desires and beliefs, ability to hide emotions) appears at
around 67 years. Finally, the understanding of cognitive reflection upon emotions (mixed and moral emotions, mental control of emotion) emerges at around
89 years. Emotion recognition, since early infancy, is
a prerequisite for empathy: the identification of emotional cues allows children to respond empathically
or not to a certain situation [Dunn, 1988; Harris,
1989]. With the increasing cognitive ability to comprehend the different causes of emotions (situational
and, lately, mental causes, such as desired or beliefs),
children become able to act empathically in response
to situational stimuli even without coherent facial expressions [Battistelli, 1992; Miller, 1985]. More advanced forms of empathy take into account of the implications of both the situation itself and the personal
characteristics of others on their emotional reactions
[Feshbach, 1987]: this imply a clear distinction between ones own and others emotions. The comprehension of others emotion is indeed linked to prosocial behavior: several studies proved the existence of
a positive relationship between childrens emotional
understanding, their prosocial behavior and also their

153

acceptance and popularity with peers [Denham et al.,

2002; Izard et al., 2001; Pons et al., 2002; Villanueva
et al., 2000]. On the other hand, poor emotion understanding is one of the main deficits associated with
serious psychiatric disorders, including autism and

schizophrenia [e.g., Baron-Cohen, 2002; Brune,

2005;
Trentacosta and Fine, 2010]. The comprehension of
different aspects of emotional experience is therefore a
central ability for empathic responsiveness and prosocial behavior.
The possible relationships between the attribution
of prosocial vs. hostile role and emotion understanding has been recently investigated in three groups of
preschoolers (3, 4, and 5 years old) by Belacchi and
Farina [2010], using the TEC for evaluating childrens
emotion comprehension and a teacher report version of the Participant 8 Role Questionnaire [Belacchi,
2008] to detect childrens empathic dispositions and
prosocial/hostile behaviors. The tendency to assume
prosocial roles, significantly higher in girls rather than
in boys, turned out to be associated with a good level
of emotion comprehension, as a global measure. All
the Prosocial roles were positively correlated with External dimension of emotion understanding, confirming a general good management of situational and
observable features of emotions at this age [Albanese
and Molina, 2008; Pons et al., 2004]. From this point
of view, it is interesting to note that the only significant positive correlations regarding Mental and
Reflective dimension of emotion understanding, regarded two Prosocial roles: Defender and Mediator.
This could be interpreted as a confirmation of the
positive relationship between the management of better cognitive abilities to comprehend others feelings
and the assumption of prosocial behaviors. On the
contrary, the Hostile roles have no significant correlations with the measures of emotion comprehension,
except for a weak relation with External component,
according only with a subgroup of teachers. A general
negative association with emotion comprehension has
been found for the roles of Victim and Outsider. It is
possible that, in preschool children, these roles are
not well differentiated from each other, yet [Monks
et al., 2005]. Probably, young victims and outsiders
have in common a similar poor assertive behavioral
pattern, which favors their tendency either to be maltreated by peers or to keep away from difficult social
situations.
THE ROLE OF SOCIAL DESIRABILITY

According to social desirability attitude, we mean

the disposition of individuals to behave in line with
social conventional rules. This tendency to conformist
Aggr. Behav.

154

Belacchi and Farina

behavior increases in function of age [Lane et al.,

2010], but is not necessary linked to the development
of moral reasoning, whereas moral judgments and
conventional social-oriented behaviors could be related to each other starting from the preschool age.
According to Turiel [1983], also young children are
able to make the distinction between moral rules and
conventional rules: the former refers to ethic and
universal principles prescribing not to harm other
people; the latter refers to arbitrary and changeable
conventions that define the belonging to a cultural
group. Some developmental studies show that individuals start distinguishing moral and conventional
transgression in their judgment from the age of 39
months [Smetana, 1981; Smetana and Braeges, 1990]
and across cultures [Song et al., 1987]. In particular, moral transgressions are judged to be less rulecontingent than conventional transgressions; individuals are less likely to state that moralrather than
conventionaltransgressions are permissible in the
absence of prohibiting rules [Turiel et al., 1987]. Only
moral transgressions are associated with the distress
of others, and this association remains intact whether
there is a rule prohibiting action or not. This position
predicts that individuals who show reduced distress
of other processing, should show a reduced moralconventional distinction [Blair, 1997; Blair et al.,
1997].
Therefore, social desirability measures could allow
us to distinguish between a genuine tendency toward
moral engagement and an orientation toward social
approval and conventional rules.
AIMS OF THE STUDY

The present study involves the same participants

of the cross-sectional study with children between 3
and 6 years of age by Belacchi and Farina [2010] on
the relationships between childrens emotion comprehension and their tendency to assume prosocial and
hostile behaviors, according to teachers reports (see
above).
In the present contribution, two new variables have
been considered: empathy and social desirability. The
main aim is to investigate all the relationships among:
cognitive and affective empathy; childrens emotion
comprehension; their tendency to assume prosocial
and/or hostile roles with peers; social desirability.
More specifically the current work analyze the effects
of age, gender, and two different groups of teachers
perceptions on the above-mentioned variables and on
their interrelationships.
Concerning empathy, we expected that, according
to the literature, both kinds of empathy increase with
Aggr. Behav.

age and are higher in girls than in boys. In particular,

we hypothesized the existence of a significant positive
link of all empathy measures with both emotion comprehension and prosocial roles and a negative link
with both hostile roles and the outsider role.
Regarding social desirability and its relationships
with empathy measures and with emotion comprehension, a general positive link was expected; regarding its relationships with hostile/prosocial roles, we
expected a negative correlation with the former and
nonsignificant links with the latter, confirming what
has been found with pre-adolescents [Belacchi, 2008]
and adolescents [Belacchi et al., 2009]. The confirmation of this hypothesis would be also in line with
the above-mentioned evidence of lower presence of
moral-conventional distinction in individuals with a
developmental disorder, characterized by emotional
dysfunctions, impulsivity and poor behavioral control [Blair, 2007].
METHOD

Participants
The participants were 219 children (113 boys and
93 girls; age range: 3978 months, M = 4.10; SD =
10 months) and 20 teachers (two for each class, nominally identified as teachers A and teachers B; all females; age range = 2548 years). Subjects with one
or more missing data were excluded from the sample.
Therefore, the analyses have been carried out on 188
participants (102 boys and 86 girls). Children, like in
Belacchi and Farinas study [2010], were subdivided
into three age groups, that corresponded to the three
kindergarten class groups: young (N = 56; M = 45.87
months; SD = 3.54), medium (N = 63; M = 58.22
months; SD = 4.12), and old (N = 69; M = 70.71
months; SD = 3.70). This subdivision is also consistent with the normative age groups of TEC.
Children and teachers came from working- or
middle-class backgrounds and were drawn from three
public nursery schools in the center of Italy. All participants had Italian as their first language; no children presented cognitive, sensory-motor, or linguistic
impairments; parents informed agreement was obtained for all the children attending these nursery
schools.
Instruments
We used both teacher ratings on empathy, social
desirability and participants roles in bullying, and a
direct assessment of childrens emotion comprehension.
Teachers were asked to fill in a questionnaire, structured in three sections, as follows:

Empathy and Emotion Comprehension in Preschoolers

(1) Empathic Responsiveness Scale, a modified version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI)
[Davis, 1980]. From the four subscales included
in IRI, we excluded Fantasy Empathy and Personal Distress subscales, selecting Perspective Taking (PT) and Empathic Concern (EC) subscales,
which, respectively, assess cognitive ability to assume others point of view and affective reactions
to others distress. Such subscales are the most
consistent with the definition of empathy we refer
to [Burkard and Knox, 2004; Gini et al., 2007].
Considering the age of our subjects, we eliminated
the less suitable items for preschoolers (e.g., I
believe that in any situation two opposite aspects do exist, therefore I try to take in consideration both of them (PT) and Before criticizing
anyone, I try to figure out what I would feel if
were in his/her shoes (EC); therefore, each subscale is composed of four items. We also modified
the sentences in order to be other-report (see
Appendix).
(2) Social Desirability Scale, adapted from Manganelli et al. [2000]. It is composed of six items
(see Appendix) chosen from the original nine.
The items that were not appropriate to describe
preschoolers attitude have been eliminated (e.g.,
I never got annoyed when someone expressed
some ideas which are different from mine) and
the sentences re-written in order to be otherreport. We used this instrument not simply
as a way of controlling for social compliance
but as a design independent variable expressing childrens tendency to satisfy others expectations, according to conventional rules [Belacchi,
2008].
(3) Participant 8 Roles Questionnaire: teacher-report
version [see Belacchi and Farina, 2010]. It is composed of 24 items, three for each role. Considering the latent structure of this questionnaire,
(described above) we grouped these roles in: Prosocial roles, Hostile roles, Victim, and Outsider.
Childrens emotion comprehension was measured by
administering them the TEC [Pons and Harris, 2000]
in its Italian standardized version [Albanese and
Molina, 2008]. The TEC consists of an A4 book (male
and female versions) presenting a series of cartoon
scenarios placed on the top of each page; the bottom
part of the same page shows four possible emotional
outcomes depicted by facial expressions. While showing a cartoon scenario, the researcher tells the child
a story. After hearing the story, the child is asked to
attribute an emotion (happy, sad, angry, scared, or
just alright) to the main character by pointing to one

155

of the four depicted emotional outcomes (nonverbal

responses).
Coding System
Teachers had to indicate how frequently they observed specific behaviors and attitudes in the children of their class, using a 5-point Likert scale (never,
rarely, sometimes, often, always). The answers to all
the items of the questionnaire were coded as follows:
Never = 1 point; Always = 5 points. Some items,
formulated in negative terms, have been recoded inverting the scores (i.e. Never = 5; Always = 1). In
particular, items which needed recoding were n 2, 4,
and 5 in the Social Desirability Scale and items n 2, 5,
and 6 in the Empathic Responsiveness Scale. The average scores (range 05) have been calculated for each
of the different scales and subscales. The reliability
analyses for Empathic Responsiveness Scale and Social Desirability Scale will be reported forward, in the
results section.
Regarding the TEC, a detailed coding description
can be found in Belacchi and Farina [2010]. The
ranges of TEC different measures are the following:
Emotion global score (09); External (03); Mental
(03), Reflective (03).
Procedure
Children were administered the TEC individually
in a quiet room in their school. We went several
times to the nursery school in order to administer the
instrument to all the children. Each session lasted
a maximum of 20 min. Teachers filled in the questionnaire on their own, after receiving detailed instructions and clarifications by the researcher. In
particular, teachers received a short explanation of
the conventional meaning of bullying episodes among
peers [Genta et al., 1996; Whitney and Smith, 1993].
The teachers returned the completed questionnaire
within 15 days.
RESULTS

Reliability of Empathy and Social Desirability

Scales
Preliminary reliability analyses on Empathy and Social desirability scales have been conducted separately
for each group of teachers (A and B). Concerning the
Empathy Scale, we carried out analyses on the items
of both the global scale (N = 8) and of the two subscales: EC (N = 4) and PT (N = 4). Cronbachs
indices revealed a good reliability for the global scale
(Teachers A = .78, Teachers B = .85) and a satisfactory one for both EC (Teachers A = .65, Teachers B = .78) and PT (Teachers A = .61, Teachers
Aggr. Behav.

156

Belacchi and Farina

TABLE I. Teachers A and Teachers Bs Average Scores (Standard Deviations) regarding Empathy (Total and Subcomponents) by Age
Teachers A

Teachers B

Age groups
Empathy measures
Empathy total
Empatic concern (EC)
Perspective taking (PT)

Age groups

Young

Medium

Old

2p

3.16
(.51)
3.45
(.57)
2.86
(.54)

3.15
(.65)
3.43
(.55)
2.87
(.57)

3.15
(.51)
3.30
(.64)
2.86
(.67)

.691

.004

.633

.005

.832

.002

B = .74). These indices are in line with the ones obtained by Albiero et al. [2006] for the Italian validation
of the instrument.
Finally, Cronbachs on Social Desiderability scale
items is also valid: Teachers A = .76; Teachers B =
.81.
Descriptive Statistics
Empathy. First, we verified the inter-teacher
agreement with partial correlations (corrected for
childrens age) between teachers attributions of empathy. Correlations were all positive: total Empathy
(r = .680; P < .001), EC (r = .633, P < .001), PT (r =
.603, P < .001). Both teacher groups judged EC and
PT as highly interrelated (r = .639, P < .001; r = .657,
P < .001, respectively, Group A and Group B).
Moreover, Teachers A and B agreed to consider
their children significantly more able in Empathic
Concern than in Perspective Taking (t pairwise test:
Teachers A: EC = 3.44 (.63) vs. PT = 2.87 (.60), t
(187) = 14.966, P < .001; Teachers B: EC = 3.42 (.73)
vs. PT 2.86 (.69), t (187) = 13.012, P < .001).
We also conducted a multivariate ANOVA on the
average scores for Empathy, with Gender and Age
as independent variables. Age did not show any significant influence on the empathy measures, for either teacher, except for teacher B, who attributed a

Young

Medium

Old

2p

3.12
(.66)
3.44
(.58)
2.80
(.65)

3.07
(.73)
3.36
(.74)
2.79
(.59)

3.21
(.99)
3.46
(.82)
2.97
(.81)

.089

.026

.316

.013

.035

.036

significantly higher competence in Perspective Taking to older children than to the other age groups
[F (2,187) = 3.407 P < .035; 2p = .04; post-hoc
WallerDuncan test: P < .05]. These latter did not
differ from each other (see Table I).
Concerning the effects of gender, both teachers assigned higher average scores on empathy to girls than
to boys [Teachers A: F(1,187) = 24,987 P < .001;
2p = .121]; Teachers B [F(1,187) = 17,904 P < .001;
2p = .09] (see Table II). No interactions between age
and gender emerged.
Social desirability. The teacher inter-agreement
on social desirability attributions is very good (r =
.790, P < .001). As for empathy, we conducted a
multivariate ANOVA on the average scores of social
desirability, with Sex and Age as independent variables. A significant age effect emerged [Teacher A:
F(2,187) = 4.084 P < .018; 2p = .043; Teacher B:
F(2,187) = 3.342 P < .038; 2p = .035]. In particular, social desirability decreases with Age [Teachers
A: young: 3.97 (.57); middle: 3.70 (.53); old: 3.64 (.74):
F(2,187) = 4.084 P < .018; 2p = .043; Teachers B:
young: 3.92 (.59); middle: 3.62 (.57); old: 3.64 (.79):
(F(2,187) = 3.342 P < .038; 2p = .035)]; a post-hoc
analysis (WallerDuncan test) revealed a significant
decrease (P < .05) from young children to the middle
and old ones, which do not differ from each other.

TABLE II. Teachers A and Teachers Bs Average Scores (Standard Deviations) regarding Empathy (Total and Subcomponents)
by Sex
Teachers A

Teachers B

Sex

Sex

Empathy measures

2p

Empathy total

2.98
(.54)
3.23
(.60)
2.73
(.61)

3.36
(.50)
3.69
(.58)
3.03
(.55)

.001

.121

.001

.137

.001

.07

Empatic concern (EC)

Perspective taking (PT)

Aggr. Behav.

2p

2.97
(.65)
3.25
(.75)
2.70
(.69)

3.34
(.59)
3.63
(.65)
3.04
(.66)

.001

.090

.001

.066

.001

.074

Empathy and Emotion Comprehension in Preschoolers

Girls are considered more oriented toward desirable

behavior than boys [Teachers A: boys: 3.57; girls: 3.98:
F(1,187) = 19.631 P < .001; 2p = .097; Teachers B:
boys: 3.59; girls: 3.87: F (1,187) = 7.501 P < .007;
2p = .040]. No significant interactions emerged between age and sex.

157

ers A did not point out any significant relations with

the subcomponents of childrens emotion comprehension; moreover perspective-taking ability was shown
to be linked to the more complex components of emotion understanding (Mental, P < .05 and Reflective,
P < .05).
Further correlational analyses (controlling for age)
have been conducted between empathic concern, perspective -taking and each of the nine components of
emotion understanding. The only correlational index
that remains significant, even if low and exclusively for
Teachers B, is between perspective taking and component VII, or ability to hide emotions (r = .156, P <
.05).
Furthermore, different multiple regression analyses (Stepwise Method, weighted for age) were performed with global empathy, empathic concern, and
perspective taking (as perceived by the two groups of
teachers) as dependent variable and as independent
variables the three sub-dimensions of childrens emotion comprehension. Significant predictive small effects emerged only for Teachers Bs ratings: global empathy is directly predicted by Mental sub-dimension
(R2 = .023, = .152, t = 2.094, P < .038), whereas
perspective taking is directly predicted by the Reflective one (R2 = .036, = .190; t = 2.632, P < .009).
None of the emotion comprehension sub-dimensions
holds a significant predictive effect on empathic
concern.
Further multiple regression analyses (Stepwise
method, weighted for age) have been run in order
to explore the predictive power of the nine components of emotion comprehension on Teachers Bs attributions of Global Empathy, Empathic Concern,
and Perspective Taking. The results highlighted that
the only component that holds a significant effect
according to Teachers Bis VII (hiding emotions) on
Perspective Taking ( = .179, t = 2.485, P < .05).
No significant relation emerged between social
desirabilityaccording to teacher reportsand childrens emotion comprehension (both as a global measure and as single dimensions).

The Relation between Empathy and Social

Desirability
Correlational analyses (corrected for age) showed
larger positive relationships between attributions of
empathy and social desirability according to both the
groups of teachers: Teachers A (r = . 634; P < .001);
Teachers B (r = .662; P < .001): the more a child
is perceived as empathic, the more he/she will be
considered as behaving according to social standards.
Analyzing separately the relation between social desirability and the affective (empathic concern) and cognitive (perspective taking) components of empathy,
partial correlations (corrected for age) showed high
positive significant correlations, both for Teachers A
(EC: r = .548, P < .001; PT: r = .602, P < .001)
and for Teachers B (EC: r = .555, P < .001; PT: r =
.656, P < .001). The correlation of social desirability
was larger with perspective taking than with empathic
concern for both teachers.
Empathy, Social Desirability, and Emotion
Understanding
Correlational analyses (corrected for age) between
the scores on TEC (total and sub-dimensions) and
the ones on Empathic Responsiveness Scale, according to both teacher groups (see Table III) were conducted. Results show low agreement between teachers
A and B: both teacher groups evaluations on empathy and TEC positively correlate with low indices for
the global measures. Only Teachers B evaluations revealed a significant correlation of global empathy with
Mental sub-dimension (P < .05).
Regarding the affective and cognitive dimensions
of empathy, Teachers B considered both of them as
related to global emotion (P < .05), whereas Teach-

TABLE III. Partial Correlations (Corrected for Age) between Teachers A and Teachers Bs Attributions of Empathy Measures and
Emotion Comprehension Measures
Total Empathy
TEC
External
Mental
Reflective
Emotion
Correlation

Empathic Concern (EC)

Perspective Taking (PT)

Teach. A

Teach. B

Teach. A

Teach. B

Teach. A

Teach. B

.089
.110
.093
.142

.093
.148
.133
.180

.063
.117
.067
.119

.109
.116
.093
.154

.099
.081
.103
.138

.058
.154
.152
.175

is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

Aggr. Behav.

158

Belacchi and Farina

Concerning the relationships between empathy

measures and social desirability, significant positive
correlations emerged according to both the teacher
groups. More precisely, according to Teachers A, children showing higher tendency to social desirability,
also have higher levels of total empathy (r = 628; P <
.001), empathic concern (r = .545; P < .001), and perspective taking (r = .593; P < .001).
Similar correlation indices have been found also for
Teachers B (r = .650, P < .001; r = .548, P < .001;
r = .636, P < .001, respectively).
Empathy, Social Desirability,
and Prosocial/Hostile Roles
In order to verify the relationships between the empathy measures and prosocial/hostile roles, correlational analysis was conducted (Pearsons r). Considering the global empathy score, teachers A and Bs
attributions agreed highly with each other. In particular, for both groups of teachers empathy is significantly, positively correlated with Prosocial roles, both
as a macro-group and as single roles (P < .001), but
negatively with Hostile roles, both as a macro-group
and as single roles (P < .001) and with the Outsider
(P < .001). The Victim role did not show any significant correlation with empathy, even if a negative
association emerged (see Table IV).
Considering empathic concern and perspective taking, the correlational pattern is similar to the previous one, but it becomes more specific. In particular,
observing Prosocial roles, the correlation indices are
higher with affective empathy than with the cognitive
one, especially for Teachers B (EC: r = .614 vs. PT:
r = .383).
In order to investigate these relationships more
deeply, a series of multiple regressions (Stepwise
Method, weighted for age) has been conducted. For
each group of teachers, empathic concern and perspective taking were entered as independent variables; the
dependent variable was, time-to-time, one of the four
macro-roles: Prosocial Roles, Hostile Roles, Victim,
and Outsider (the significant results are reported in

Table V). For both Teachers A and B, Prosocial Roles

are positively predicted only by the affective component of empathy, but not by the cognitive one. There
is a general agreement between the two groups of
teachers also regarding Hostile Roles: both the components of empathy hold a predictive but negative
effect on them. Similarly to what happens for Hostile
roles, the Outsider role is also negatively predicted by
both the affective and cognitive components of empathy (the latter only for Teachers B). The role of
Victim is not predicted by any measure of ascribed
empathy (this analysis is therefore not included in
Table V).
Regarding the relationship between social desirability and teachers attributions of prosocial/hostile
roles (both macro and specific roles), no significant
relationships emerged with Prosocial roles, whereas a
very strong negative relationship with Hostile Roles
came out, as well as a similar but less strong relationship with the Victim role. Only the B Teachers
perceived a negative link with the role of Outsider (see
Table VI).
DISCUSSION

The current study revealed the multifaceted relationships between preschool childrens empathic
competences (as attributed by teachers) and both
their emotion comprehension and tendency to assume prosocial or hostile roles with their peers.
First of all, descriptive analyses on teachers attributions of empathy and social desirability highlighted
a predictable framework, according to the literature
[Eisenberg, 1986; Warden and Mackinnon, 2003]:
girls are perceived as more empathic and more
concerned about their social desirability than boys.
In studies using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index
[Davis, 1980], girls usually obtain higher scores than
boys concerning both the affective and cognitive dimensions of empathy [Gini et al., 2007]. This is also a
general trend, which has been identified with other
research methods and instruments. [Eisenberg and
Fabes, 1998]. Our results confirm this tendency even in

TABLE IV. Partial Correlations (Corrected for Age) between Empathy (Total and Subcomponents) and Macro-roles given by Teachers
A and Teachers B
Total Empathy
Participant roles
Hostile roles
Prosocial roles
Victim
Outsider
Correlation

Aggr. Behav.

Empathic Concern (EC)

Perspective Taking (PT)

Teach. A

Teach. B

Teach. A

Teach. B

Teach. A

Teach. B

.534
.551
.118
.320

.544
.551
.091
.515

.501
.576
.011
.344

.486
.614
.038
.498

.467
.420
.134
.233

.515
.383
.131
.439

is significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed).

Empathy and Emotion Comprehension in Preschoolers

159

TABLE V. Multiple Regression Analyses (Weighted for Age): Significant Coefficients of Empathic Measures on Macro-roles (Prosocial, Hostile, and Outsider) Attributed by Teachers A and Teachers B
Prosocial roles
Independent variables
Teach. A

Empathic concern
Perspective taking
Empathic concern
Perspective taking

Teach. B

R2

R2

P value

.539

.290

.286

.686

.539

.583

.340

.337

.639

.583

8.719
1.323
9.798
.458

.001
n.s.
.001
n.s.

.439
.232
.357
.357

5.816
3.076
4.843
4.836

.001
.001
.001
.001

4.955
.341
4.158
2.722

.001
n.s.
.001
.007

Hostile roles
Teach. A

Empathic concern
Perspective taking
Empathic concern
Perspective taking

Teach. B

.587
.614
.590
.649

.345
.376
.348
.422

.341
.370
.345
.415

.390
.217
.291
.305
Outsider

Teach. A

Empathic concern
Perspective taking
Empathic concern
Perspective taking

Teach. B

.341

.117

.112

.343

.341

.492
.520

.242
.271

.238
.263

.339
.233

.344
.225

TABLE VI. Partial Correlations (Corrected for Age) between Social Desirability given by Teachers A and Teachers B and Macro-roles
Social desirability
Participant roles

Teachers A

Teachers B

.816
.098
.407
.004

.758
.126
.400
.230

Hostile roles
Prosocial roles
Victim
Outsider
Correlation

is significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed).

Correlation

preschoolers, when the scores are attributed by teachers, and they are also in line with different studies on
empathy with preschoolers using diverse methodologies, that is, self-report measures, emotional reactions
to empathy-inducing films, and comprehension and
sharing response to video vignettes of children in
emotionally evocative scenarios [Howe et al., 2008;
Valiente et al., 2004]. Furthermore, empathy seems a
rather stable trait in our preschoolers, nonetheless the
cross-sectional nature of our data does not allow us to
generalize this outcome: a longitudinal study would
provide more confident results. This outcome is partially in contrast with the literature, in which a general
increase of empathic abilities with age is found [see e.g.
Hoffman, 2000; Valiente et al., 2004] even though in a
wider age range: more evident differences in empathy
may have emerged if both preschool and school age
children had been considered.
Regarding the affective and cognitive components
of empathy, the children showed a higher ability in
being affectively connected to other peers. This may
be interpreted in the light of the above-mentioned
studies on childrens language development, which is

is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

first related to desires and emotions and, only later,

becomes more cognitive [Dunn and Brown, 1993;
Wellman, 2002].
Concerning social desirability, even if it is not intensely studied in preschoolers, the effects of gender
could be interpreted in the light of the research on
normative beliefs and moral judgment. Some interesting evidences about normative belief highlighted
significant preference for beliefs, which accept aggression by older children and boys [Guerra et al., 1995;
Huesmann and Guerra, 1997]. This could be interpreted as a reduced need for social approval by males
and old children. This result could also be in line with
some evidence in bullying studies, which indicates that
male bullies tend to use moral disengagement more
frequently than female bullies [Bacchini et al., 1998;
Menesini et al., 1999]. On the other hand, the decrease
with age in perceived inclination of children to behave
in a social accepted way may be in contrast with some
results of other studies, which showed a general increase in giving social desirable answers during childhood [e.g., Carpendale and Chandler, 1996]. A possible explanation may be ascribed to the methodology:
Aggr. Behav.

160

Belacchi and Farina

in our study, social desirability was assessed by teacher

reports and not directly measured on children answers
or behaviors. Teachers perceptions may more clearly
identify some behaviors in older children attesting, on
the one hand, an increased self-concept and differentiation, which bothplausiblygrow with age, and,
on the other hand, a greater familiarization with the
teacher figures. Both of them may lead to an increase
in more spontaneous behaviors in children, who could
be more difficult to manage in the class.
Regarding the main aim of our study, we wanted to
examine the relationships of empathy with emotion
comprehension as well as with childrens ascribed tendency to assume different roles in peer interactions.
The clear, even if weak, direct association only between global empathy and global emotion comprehension, according to both teacher groups, point out
a sufficient teachers ability to detect significant aspects of their pupils socioemotional abilities. The
most complex dimensions of emotion comprehension revealed a significant predictive power on empathy measures according to Teachers B (this difference between the two groups of teachers will be later
discussed): Mental sub-dimension on global empathy
and Reflective sub-dimension on perspective taking.
Interestingly, among the nine components of emotion understanding, the abilities of perspective -taking
are predicted only by the comprehension of the possibility of dissimulating an emotion (component VII).
In this case, too, the result refers only to Teachers
B. This could indicate that children who display high
abilities of understanding others perspectives are also
good at identifying peoples real feelings, even when
they are in contrast with their expressive outcomes. In
other words, abilities of perspective taking are associated with greater mind-reading skills, which enable
children to comprehend hidden emotions, confirming what has been found in other studies [e.g. Harris et al., 1986]. Furthermore, this component may
also be considered as one with the highest cognitive implication, as shown in studies on psychological lexicon, which noted the importance of understanding and talking about othersrather than ones
owninternal states to promote prosociality [Hughes
et al., 2007; Wellman, 2002]. Also in a recent study by
Morra et al. [2010] with children between 5 and 11
years of age, the component VII proved to be one of
those which is more connected with working memory
ability.
Concerning the link between empathy and prosocial/hostile roles we found a higher inter-teacher
agreement. Such agreement may derive from the kind
of measures used, in both teacher groups reports.
Prosocial roles were shown to be positively influenced
Aggr. Behav.

by affective empathy; whereas Hostile roles were negatively influenced by both affective and cognitive empathy. Whereas the implication of affective empathy
in prosocial behavior is consistent with literature evidence [Dautenhahn et al., 2007; Eisenberg, 1992;
Eisenberg and Fabes, 1998], our results on Hostile
roles do not support the existence of a positive link,
in preschoolers, between bullying and good abilities
of perspective taking, as claimed by Sutton and colleagues [Sutton et al., 1999] and Jolliffe and Farrington [2004, 2006] and call for further investigation.
The Outsider showed negative correlations with empathy measures, confirming its similarity to Hostile
roles, whereas the Victim had no significant correlations with empathy, but only a weak negative association. A possible explanation of this last outcome
could lie in the age of the subjects: the most part
of the research on aggressive behaviors and mentalization has been conducted among children in their
school years. In this period, theory of mind abilities
and tendency to assume distinct roles in peer interactions generally begin to assume a certain stability.
From this point of view, our data characterized the
period from 3 to 6 years of age as a more dynamic
one, with childrens first acquisitions of perspectivetaking abilities and the beginning of inclinations to
assume attitudes and behaviors connected with different macro-roles, even if they are not stable and
well differentiated yet [Belacchi and Farina, 2010;
Monks et al., 2005]. In particular, the absence of correlation between empathy and the Victim role can be
interpreted, in our preschool subjects, referring first
to the specific ambiguity of this role, which presents
analogies both with Prosocial and Hostile roles. Furthermore, in literature there are contrasting evidences
on the relationships between empathy and the victim
role: Gini et al. [2005] did not find significant associations in adolescents, whereas Belacchi [2008] detected
a significanteven if weakpositive correlation in
primary school children. Finally, in preschoolers the
Victim is one of the less stable role [Kochenderfer and
Ladd, 1996; Monks et al., 2003]. A further aim of our
study regarded the investigation of social desirability
ascribed attitudes and their relationships to the other
measures of social-emotional development: empathy,
emotion comprehension, and prosocial/hostile roles
in peer interactions.
The results confirmedas we hypothesized following what has been found in older children [Belacchi,
2008; Belacchi et al., 2009]the significant negative
link of the ascribed tendency to behave according to
social norms and expectations with hostile roles and
the victim role, but no significant links with prosocial roles. Therefore, prosociality seems to derive from

Empathy and Emotion Comprehension in Preschoolers

a genuine internal willingness to help others (disclosed by affective empathy disposition), rather than
to please other peoples expectations, (disclosed by social desirability measure). This is in line with moralconventional distinction sensitivity, which starts to
emerge in typical young children [Turiel et al. 1987],
but is less present in individual with emotional and
behavioral disorder, such as the psychopathic individuals [Blair, 1995]. This lack of social desirability attitude as well as that of affective and cognitive empathy
in hostile roles could be interpreted not only in the
traditional frame of attachment models [Dunn, 1993;
Hodges and Tizard, 1989; Thompson, 1998] but also
in the light of the neuroscience approach, suggesting
that neuronal system (in particular, the Amigdala and
Ventro-medial Pre-frontal Cortex) may be crucially
involved in moral development [Blair et al., 2001,
2004; Moll et al., 2002] and in care-based morality
[Blair, 2007], enabling individuals to learn the good
and the bad of objects and situations [Everitt et al.,
2003].
As regards to the correlations between empathy, social desirability, and prosociality, it is true that the
more a child is perceived as empathic (both cognitively and affectively), the more he/she is supposed to
behave prosocially and according to social standards.
Our data, showing that not social desirability but only
the affective component of empathy predicts prosocial behaviors, suggest a more complex picture of the
moral-conventional distinction: behaving according
to social prescriptions is not sufficient to elicit supportive and caring actions, which seem to derive from
a genuine concern of others distress and might turn
out in a higher moral awareness. Clearly this last point
needs deeper investigation.
Finally, the partial agreement between the two
groups of teachers is worth discussing, regarding
above all the empathy measures in relationship to childrens emotion comprehension. Young childrens empathy andmore generallyprosocial behavior have
been extensively studied using adult reports, both
teachers and parents. Teachers are the most frequently
used informants to detect both aggressive and prosocial behavior in preschoolers, and they showed to
provide valid measures [e.g. Cote et al., 2002; Crick
and Bigbee, 1998; Crick et al., 1999]. A study on preadolescents between 10 and 15 years, compared the
associations between different informants assessing
prosocial behavior: the association between teachers and childrens ratings was significantly stronger
than the one found between teachers and mothers
[Nantel-Vivier et al., 2009]. In relation to some limitations in using teacher reports, it is true that each

161

method presents both advantages and disadvantages,

according to different variables, above all the age of
the subjects [Ladd and Kochenderferer-Ladd, 2002]
or the characteristics of the teachers. In our study, the
teachers of each class have been casually assigned to
one of the two groups (A and B), so the differences in
their judgments can be explained only hypothesizing
differences in their personal attitudes or ideas. Teachers implicit ideas or stereotypes proved to have a
great influence on their class management, their way
of interacting with pupils, and their teaching methods [e.g. Fiorilli, 2009]. Studies on elementary and
high school teachers proved that a large number of
factors affect teachers perceptions of students undesirable behaviors, such as childrens gender, race,
age, and socioeconomic background [Dulin, 2001;
Hindmand, 1999; Neese, 1998], childrens behaviors
and attitudes [Molins, 1999], teaching experience
[Kokkinos et al., 2004, 2005] teachers stress and burnout [Walker, 1991], personality traits, such as neuroticism and conscientiousness [Kokkinos et al., 2005].
One possible future research direction may include
the investigation of mediating effects of teaching experience and personality traits on their perception
of certain childrens behaviors. We could therefore explore the existence of different evaluations of children
conducts according to teachers experience and/or
teachers personality dispositions. It is also worth underlining that teachers personality traits and relational models have an impact not only on the way
they perceive childrens behaviors, but also on the relational atmosphere in the class.
CONCLUSIONS

This study provides some evidences suggesting that

at ages 36 years, children begin to build up socialemotional profiles comparable with those of older
children. Since early childhood, children who prove
to better comprehend others emotions are in general
perceived as more empathic and more adaptive and
socially oriented. If a positive involvement of affective
empathy in prosocial roles and its negative implication in hostile roles are plausible and empirically supported, the most surprising outcome regards cognitive
empathy, which negatively influences hostile roles, but
has no implications in prosocial roles. These results,
on one hand, seem to support Dodge and colleagues
[Crick and Dodge, 1994; Dodge, 1980; Dodge and
Frame, 1982] with their model of scarce social information processing in bullies, but on the other hand,
they could simply mean that the cognitive component of empathy is not completely developed, given

Aggr. Behav.

162

Belacchi and Farina

the young age of the children involved in the present

study.
The characteristics of Victim and Outsider roles
are also worth underlining. Confirming and clarifying what has been previously found by Belacchi and
Farina [2010], they showed themselves as poorly assertive and potentially at risk of social maladjustment.
Of course, further research is needed to generalize
these findings on young childrens emotion comprehension, empathy attributions and moral reasoning,
and their relations to social behavior. In particular,
longitudinal investigations may enhance our understanding of the genesis of maladaptive social profiles
and help the implementation of social skills training or rehabilitation programs from early childhood
[Malti et al., 2010].
ACKOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank Beatrice Benelli for her

useful comments to the paper.
APPENDIX
Empathic Responsiveness Scale

(1) He/she often feel affection and concern for sad

or unlucky people (EC).
(2) Sometimes he/she finds it difficult to see things
from another persons point of view (PT).
(3) In case of disagreement, he/she tries to consider
others point of view (PT).
(4) When he/she sees someone treated badly, he/she
feels protectiveness toward him/her (EC).
(5) If he/she feels right about something, he/she does
not waste time listening to others reasons (PT).
(6) When he/she sees someone treated wrongly,
he/she does nothing to help him/her (EC).
(7) He/she could be described as a soft-hearted child
(EC).
(8) When he/she is in contrast with someone, he/she
usually tries to put him/herself in others shoes
(PT).
Social Desirability Scale

(1) No matter who he/she is talking to, he/she is

always a good listener.
(2) In some occasions he/she hurt a classmate.
(3) When he/she makes a mistake, he/she always admits it.
(4) Sometimes he/she tries to take his/her revenge if
he/she is mistreated.
(5) Sometimes he/she envied others fortune.
(6) He/she never told something badly in order to
hurt some of his/her classmate.
Aggr. Behav.

REFERENCES
Albanese O, Molina P. 2008. Lo sviluppo della comprensione delle
emozioni e la sua valutazione. La standardizzazione italiana
del Test della Comprensione delle Emozioni (TEC). Unicopli,
Milano.
Albiero P, Ingoglia S, Lo Coco A. 2006. Contributo alladattamento
italiano dellInterpersonal Reactivity Index [A contribution to the
Italian validation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index]. Testing
Psicometria Metodologia 13:107125.
Andreou E. 2004. Bully/victim problems and their association with
Machiavellianism and self-efficacy in Greek primary school children. Br J Educ Psychol 74:297309.
Andreou E. 2006. Social preference, perceived popularity and social
intelligence. Relations to overt and relational aggression. Sch Psychol Int 27:339351.
Bacchini D, Amodeo AL, Ciardi C, Valerio P, Vitelli R. 1998. La
relazione vittima-prepotente: stabilit`a del fenomeno e ricorso ai
meccanismi di disimpegno morale. Scienze dellInterazione 5:29
46.
Baron-Cohen S. 2002. The extreme male brain theory of autism.
Trends Cogn Sci 6:248254.
Batson CD, Sager K, Garst E, Kang M, Rubchinsky K, Dawson K.
1997. Is empathy-induced helping due to selfother merging? J Pers
Soc Psychol 73:495509.
Battistelli P. 1992. La rappresentazione della soggettivit`a: origini e
sviluppo. Milano, F.Angeli.
Belacchi C. 2008. I ruoli dei partecipanti nel bullismo: una nuova
proposta. Giornale italiano di Psicologia 4:885911.
Belacchi C, Farina E. 2010, Prosocial/hostile roles and emotion comprehension in preschoolers. Aggr Behav 36:371389.
Belacchi C, Mei V, Pierucci V, Alto`e G. 2009. Ruoli dei partecipanti nel
bullismo in et`a adolescenziale: Validazione di un nuovo modello,
Proceedings of XXV Congresso Nazionale AIP Sezione Psicologia
sperimentale, Chieti, 2426 settembre.
Blair RJR. 1995. A cognitive developmental approach to morality:
Investigating the psychopath. Cognition 57:129.
Blair RJR. 1997. Moral reasoning in the child with psychopathic tendencies. Pers Indiv Differ 22:731739.
Blair RJR. 2007. The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in
morality and psychopathy. TRENDS Cogn Sci 11:387392.
Blair RJR, Colledge E, Murray L, Mitchell DGV. 2001. A selective
impairment in the processing of sad and fearful expressions in
children with psychopathic tendencies. J Abnorm Child Psychol
29:491498.
Blair RJR, Jones L, Clark F, Smith M. 1997. The psychopathic individual: A lack of responsiveness to distress cues? Psychophysiology
34:192198.
Blair RJR, Mitchell DGV, Peschard KS, Colledge E, Leonoard RA,
Shine JH, Murray L, Perrett DI. 2004. Reduced sensitivity to others fearful expressions in psychopatic individuals. Pers Indiv Differ
37:11111122.
Brown JR, Dunn J. 1996. Continuities in emotion understanding from
36 years. Child Dev 67:336349.
M. 2005. Emotion recognition, theory of mind, and social
Brune
behavior in schizophrenia. Psychiat Res 133:135147.
Burkard AW, Knox S. 2004. Effect of therapist color-blindness on
empathy and attributions in cross-cultural counseling. J Couns
Psychol 51:387397.
Carpendale JIM, Chandler MJ. 1996. On the distinction between false
belief understanding and subscribing to an interpretive theory of
mind. Child Dev 67:16861706.
Cialdini RB, Brown SL, Lewis BP, Luce C, Neuberg SL. 1997. Reinterpreting the empathyaltruism relationship: When one into one
equals oneness. J Pers Soc Psychol 73:481494.

Empathy and Emotion Comprehension in Preschoolers

Cote S, Tremblay RE, Nagin DS, Zoccolillo M, Vitaro F. 2002. Childhood behavioral profiles and adolescent conduct disorder: Risk
trajectories for boys and girls. J Am Acad Child Psy 41:1086
1094.
Crick NR, Bigbee MA. 1998. Relational and overt forms of peer
victimization: A multiinformant approach. J Consult Clin Psych
66:337347.
Crick NR, Casas JF, Ku H. 1999. Relational and physical forms of
peer victimization in preschool. Dev Psychol 35:376385.
Crick NR, Dodge KA. 1994. A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in childrens social adjustment. Psychol Bull 115:74101.
Crick NR, Dodge KA. 1999. Superiority is in the eye of the beholder:
A comment of Sutton, Smith and Swettenham. Soc Dev 8:128131.
Dautenhahn K, Woods S, Kaouri C. 2007. Possible connections between bullying behaviour, empathy and imitation. In: Dautenhahn
K, Nehaniv C (eds). Models and Mechanisms of Imitation and
Social Learning in Robots, Humans and Animals: Behavioural
Social and Communicative Dimensions. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp 323339.
Davis MH. 1980. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog Selected Documents Psychol
10:85.
Denham SA, Caverly S, Schmidt M, Blair K, DeMulder E, Caal S,
Hamada H, Mason T. 2002. Preschool understanding of emotions:
Contributions to classroom anger and aggression. J Child Psycho
Psy 43: 901916.
de Rosnay M, Harris PL, Pons F. 2008. Emotion understanding and
developmental psychopathology in young children. In: Sharp C,
Fonagy P, Goodyer I (eds). Social Cognition and Developmental
Psychopathology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 343385.
de Rosnay M, Hughes C. 2006. Conversation and theory of mind: Do
children talk their way to sociocognitive understanding? Br J Dev
Psychol 24:737.
Dodge KA. 1980. Social cognition and childrens aggressive behaviour.
Child Dev 51:162172.
Dodge KA, Frame CL. 1982. Social cognitive bias and deficits in
aggressive boys. Child Dev 53:620635.
Dulin JM. 2001. Teacher ratings of early elementary students
socialemotional behaviour. Dissertation Abstracts International
61:3469.
Dunn J. 1988. The Beginnings of Social Understanding. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Dunn J. 1993. Young Childrens Close Relationships. Beyond Attachment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Dunn J, Brown J. 1993. Early conversations about causality: Content,
pragmatics, and developmental change. Br J Dev Psychol 11:107
123.
Dunn J, Munn P. 1985. Becoming a family member: Family conflict
and the development of social understanding in the second year.
Child Dev 56:480492.
Eisenberg N. 1986. Altruistic Emotion, Cognition, and Behaviour.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eisenberg N. 1992. The Caring Child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Eisenberg N, Fabes R. 1998. Prosocial development. In: Damon W
(ed). Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 3). New York: Wiley,
pp 701778.
Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Miller PA, Shell R, Shea C, May-Plumlee
T. 1990. Preschoolers vicarious emotional responding and their
situational and dispositional prosocial behaviour. Merrill-Palmer
Quart 36:507529.
Eisenberg N, Lennon R, Roth K. 1983. Prosocial development: A
longitudinal study. Dev Psychol 19:846855.

163

Endresen IM, Olweus D. 2001. Self-reported empathy in Norwegian adolescents: Sex differences, age trends, and relationship
to bullying. In: Bohart A, Stipek D (eds). Constructive & Destructive Behaviour: Implications for Family, School, & Society.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp 147
165.
Everitt BJ, Cardinal RN, Parkinson JA, Robbins TW. 2003. Appetitive behaviour: Impact of amygdaladependent mechanisms of emotional learning. Ann NY Acad Sci 985:233250.
Feshbach ND. 1975. Empathy in children: Some theoretical and empirical considerations. Couns Psychol 4:2530.
Feshbach N. 1987. Parental empathy and children adjustment/maladjustment. In: Eisenberg N, Strayer J (eds). Empathy
and Its Development. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp
271291.
Fiorilli C. 2009. Gli insegnanti pensano lintelligenza. Dalle concezioni
alle pratiche educative. Milano: Unicopli.
Fischer KW, Shaver PR, Carnochan P. 1990. How emotions develop
and how they organize development. Cognition Emotion 4:81127.
Genta ML, Menesini E, Fonzi A, Costabile A, Smith PK. 1996. Bullies
and victims in school in central and southern Italy. Eur J Psychol
Educ 11:97110.
Gini G, Albiero P, Benelli B, Alto`e G. 2007. Does empathy predict
adolescents bullying and defending behaviour? Aggr Behav 33:1
10.
Gini G, Albiero P, Benelli B, Alto`e G. 2008. Determinants of adolescents active defending and passive bystanding behaviour in bullying. J Adolesc 31:93105.
Gini G, Albiero P, Benelli B. 2005. Relazioni tra bullismo, empatia ed
autoefficacia percepita in un campione di adolescenti. Psicologia
Clinica dello Sviluppo 3:457472.
Guerra NG, Huesmann LR, Tolan P, Van Acker R, Eron LD. 1995.
Stressful events and individual beliefs as correlates of economic
disadvantage and aggression among urban children. J Consult Clin
Psy 63:518528.
Hare RD. 1999. Psychopathy as a risk factor for violence. Psychia
Quart 70:181197.
Harris PL. 1989. Children and Emotion. Oxford: Blackwell. Trad. It.
Il bambino e le emozioni, Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 1991.
Harris PL, Donnelly K, Guz GR, Pitt-Watson R. 1986. Childrens understanding of the distinction between real and apparent emotion.
Child Dev 57:895909.
Hawley PH. 2003. Strategies of control, aggression, and morality in
preschoolers: An evolutionary perspective. J Exp Child Psychol
85:213235.
Hawley PH. 2002. Social dominance and prosocial and coercive strategies of resource control in preschoolers. Int J Behav Dev 26:167
176.
Hindmand RA. 1999. The influence of student race on teacher trainee
perceptions of student aggression. Dissertation Abstracts International 59:2850.
Hodges J, Tizard B. 1989. Social and family relationships, of existitutional adolescents. J Psychol Psy 30:7798.
Hoffman ML. 2000. Empathy and Moral Development. Implications
for Caring and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman ML. 1982. Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy
and guilt. In: Eisenberg N (ed). Development of Prosocial Behaviour. New York: Academic Press, pp 281313.
Hogan R. 1969. Development of an empathy scale. J Consult Clin
Psychol 33:307316.
Howe A, Pit-ten Cate IM, Brown A, Hadwin JA. 2008. Empathy in
preschool children: The development of the Southampton Test of
Empathy for Preschoolers (STEP). Psychol Assessment 20:305
309.

Aggr. Behav.

164

Belacchi and Farina

Huesmann LR, Guerra NG. 1997. Childrens normative beliefs about

aggression and aggressive behaviour. J Pers Soc Psychol 72:408
419.
Hughes C, Dunn J. 1998. Understanding mind and emotions: Longitudinal associations with mental-state talk between young friends.
Dev Psychol 34:10261037.
Hughes C, Lecce S, Wilson C. 2007. Do you know what I want?
Preschoolers talk about desires, thoughts and feelings in their
conversations with sibs and friends. Cognition Emotion 21:330
350.
Izard CE, Fine S, Schultz D, Mostow A, Ackerman BP, Youngstrom
EA. 2001. Emotion knowledge as a predictor of social behavior
and academic competence in children at risk. Psychol Sci 12:18
23.
Jolliffe D, Farrington DP. 2004. Empathy and offending: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Aggress Violent Behav 9:441 476.
Jolliffe D, Farrington DP. 2006. Examining the relationship between
low empathy and bullying. Aggr Behav 32:540550.
Kochenderfer BJ, Ladd GW. 1996. Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment? Child Dev 67:13051317.
Kokkinos CM, Panayiotou G, Davazoglou AM. 2004. Perceived seriousness of students undesirable behaviours: The student teachers
perspective. Edu Psychol 24:109120.
Kokkinos CM, Panayiotou G, Davazoglou AM. 2005. Correlates of
teacher appraisals of student behaviours. Psychol Schools 42:79
89.
Kurtines WM, Gewirtz JL. 1991. Handbook of Moral Behavior and
Development. Volume 1: Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ladd GW, Kochenderfer-Ladd B. 2002. Identifying victims of peer
aggression from early to middle childhood: Analysis of crossinformant data for concordance, estimation of relational adjustment,
prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identified victims. Psychol Assessment 14:7496.
Lane JD, Wellman HM, Olson SL, LaBounty J, Kerr DCR. 2010.
Theory of mind and emotion understanding predict moral development in early childhood. Br J Dev Psychol 28:871889.
Lovett BJ, Sheffield RA. 2007. Affective empathy deficits in aggressive
children and adolescents: A critical review. Clin Psychol Rev 27:1
13.
Malti T, Perren S, Buchmann M. 2010. Childrens peer victimization,
empathy, and emotional symptoms. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
41:98113.
Manganelli AM, Canova L, Marcorin R. 2000. La desiderabilita sociale. Unanalisi di forme brevi della scala di Marlowe e Crowne.
Testing Psicometria e Metodologia 7:516.
Mehrabian A, Epstein N. 1972. A measure of emotional empathy. J
Pers 40:525543.
Menesini E, Fonzi A, Vannucci M. 1999. Il disimpegno morale: la
legittimazione del comportamento prepotente. In: Fonzi A (ed). Il
Gioco Crudele. Firenze: Giunti.
Miller PA. 1985. Children reasoning about the causes of human behavior. J Exp Child Psychol 39:343362.
Miller PA, Eisenberg N. 1988. The relationship of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behaviour. Psychol Bull 103:324
344.
Molins NC. 1999. Understanding teachers judgments of problematic classroom behaviour: The influence of depression education
on teachers perceptions and judgments. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B. The Sci Enginr 60:1863.
Moll J, De Oliveira-souza R, Eslinger PJ, Bramati IE, Mourao-mir J,
Andreiuolo PAA, Pessoa L. 2002. The neural correlates of moral
sensitivity: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation
of basic and moral emotions. J Neurosci 22:27302736.

Aggr. Behav.

Monks CM, Smith PK, Swettenham J. 2003. Aggressors, victims and

defenders in preschool: Peer, self and teacher reports. MerrillPalmer Quart 49:453469.
Monks CM, Smith PK, Swettenham J. 2005. Psychological correlates
of peer victimization in preschool: Social cognitive skills, executive
function and attachment profile. Aggr Behav 31:571588.
Morra S, Parrella I, Camba R. 2010. The role of working memory
in the development of emotion comprehension. Br J Dev Psychol,
doi:10.1348/3.55-835X.002006.
Mussen P, Eisenberg-Berg N. 1977. Caring, Sharing and the Roots of
Prosocial Behavior in Children. San Francisco: Freeman.
Nantel-Vivier A, Kokko K, Caprara GV, Pastorelli C, Gerbino MG,
Paciello M, Cote S, Pihl RO, Vitaro F, Tremblay RE. 2009,
Prosocial development from childhood to adolescence: A multiinformant perspective with Canadian and Italian longitudinal
studies. J Child Psychol Psy 50:590598.
Neese DEK. 1998. Teachers perceptions of gender differences in child
aggression. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. The
Sci Enginr 59:423.
Olweus D. 1991. Bully/victim problems among school children; Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In:
Pepler DJ, Rubin KH (eds). The Development and Treatment of
Childhood Aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 411
448.
Olweus D. 1993. Bullying at School. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Pons F, Doudin P-A, Harris PL, de Rosnay M. 2002.
Metaemotion et integration scolaire. In: Lafortune L, Mongeau
P (eds). Laffectivite dans lapprentissage. Saint-Foy: Presses de
lUniversite du Quebec, pp 728.
Pons F, Harris P. 2000. Test of Emotion Comprehension-TEC. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Pons F, Harris PL, de Rosnay M. 2004. Emotion comprehension between 3 and 11 years: Developmental period and hierarchical organization. Eur J Dev Psychol 2:127152.
Radke-Yarrow M, Zahn-Waxler C, Chapman M. 1983. Prosocial dispositions and behaviour. In: Mussen P (ed). Manual of Child Psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, Personality, and Social Development. New York: Wiley, pp 469545.
Rigby K. 1996. Bullying in Schools and What to do About it. London,
UK: Jessica Kingsley.
Saarni C. 1999. The Development of Emotional Competence. New
York: Guiford Press.
Salmivalli C, Lagerspetz K, Bjorkqvist K, Osterman K, Kaukiainen
A. 1996. Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their
relations to social status within the group. Aggr Behav 22:115.
Smetana JG. 1981. Preschool childrens conceptions of moral and
social rules. Child Dev 52:13331336.
Smetana JG, Braeges JL. 1990. The development of toddlers moral
and conventional judgements. Merril-Palmer Quart 36:329346.
Song M, Smetana JG, Kim SY. 1987. Korean childrens conceptions of
moral and conventional transgressions. Dev Psychol 23::577582.
Stewart RB, Marvin RS. 1984. Sibling relations: The role of conceptual
perspective taking in the ontogeny of sibling caregiving. Child Dev
55:13221332.
Strayer J. 1987. Affective and cognitive perspectives on empathy. In:
Eisenberg N, Strayer J (eds). Empathy and Its Development. New
York: Cambridge University Press, pp 218244.
Strayer J. 1989. What children know and feel in response to witnessing
affective events. In: Saarni C, Harris P (eds). Childrens Understanding of Emotion. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp
259292.
Sutton J, Keogh E. 2000. Social competition in school: Relationships
with bullying, Machiavellianism and personality. Br J Educ Psychol 70:443456.

Empathy and Emotion Comprehension in Preschoolers

Sutton J, Smith PK, Swettenham J. 1999. Bullying and theory of
mind: A critique of the social skills deficit view of anti-social
behaviour. Soc Dev 8:117126.
Tani F. 1991. Lo sviluppo della capacit`a di cooperare nei bambini. Et`a
Evolutiva 39:4553.
Thompson RA. 1998. Early socio-personality development. In: Damon W (ed). Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3, Social, Emotional and Personality Development. New York: Wiley, pp 25
104.
Trentacosta CJ, Fine SE. 2010. Emotion knowledge, social competence, and behavior problems in childhood and adolescence: A
meta-analytic review. Soc Dev 19:129.
Turiel E. 1983. The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and
Convention. Cambridge, GB: Cambridge University Press.
Turiel E, Killen M, Helwing CC. 1987. Morality: Its structure, functions, and vagaries. In: Kagan J, Lamb S (eds). The Emergence of
Morality in Young Children. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
pp 155245.
Valiente C, Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Shepard SA, Cumberland A,
Losoya SH. 2004. Prediction of childrens empathy-related responding from their effortful control and parents expressivity.
DevPsychol 40:911926.
Villanueva L, Clemente R, Garcia F. 2000. Theory of mind and peer
rejection at school. Soc Dev 9:271283.

165

Walker BA. 1991. A study of the relationship between teacher burnout

and their tolerance of disturbing classroom behaviours. Dissertation Abstracts International-A 52/09:3230.
Warden D, Mackinnon S. 2003. Prosocial children, bullies and victims:
An investigation of their sociometric status, empathy and social
competence. Br J Dev Psychol 21:367385.
Wellman HM. 2002. Dai desideri alle credenze: lacquisizione di
una teoria della mente. In: Cmaioni L (ed). La teoria della
mente. Origini, sviluppo e patologia. Roma-Bari: Laterza, pp 156
181.
Whitney I, Smith PK. 1993. A survey of the nature and extent of
bullying in junior, middle and secondary schools. Edu Res 35:3
25.
Woods S, Wolke D, Nowicki S, Hall L. 2009. Emotion recognition
abilities and empathy of victims of bullying. Child Abuse Neglect
33:307311.
Zahn-Waxler C. 1991. The case for empathy: A developmental perspective. Psychol Inq 2:155158.
Zahn-Waxler C, Radke-Yarrow M. 1982. The development of altruism: Alternative research strategies. In: Eisenberg N (ed). The Development of Prosocial Behaviour. New York: Academic Press,
pp 109137.
Zahn-Waxler C, Radke-Yarrow M, Wagner E, Chapman M. 1992.
Development of concern for others. Dev Psychol 28:126136.

Aggr. Behav.