Professional Documents
Culture Documents
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
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
C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
151
152
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
153
154
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:
(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
156
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
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
157
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
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
158
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.
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
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
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
160
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
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
Aggr. Behav.
162
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.
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
Aggr. Behav.
165
Aggr. Behav.