Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T11:26:18.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Women More Empathetic than Men? A Longitudinal Study in Adolescence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

María Vicenta Mestre ,
Paula Samper ,
María Dolores Frías  and
Ana María Tur
María Vicenta Mestre*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Valencia (Spain)
Paula Samper
Affiliation:
Universidad de Valencia (Spain)
María Dolores Frías
Affiliation:
Universidad de Valencia (Spain)
Ana María Tur
Affiliation:
Universidad de Valencia (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to María Vicenta Mestre Escrivá, Departamento de Psicología Básica. Facultad de Psícología, Universidad de Valencia, Avda. Blasco Ibáñez, 21, 46010 Valencia, Spain. Phone: +34 963 86 48 22. E-mail: Maria.V.Mestre@uv.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the 1970s there has been a growing interest in analysing sex differences in psychological variables. Empirical studies and meta-analyses have contributed evidence on the differences between male and female individuals. More recently, the gender similarities hypothesis has supported the similarity of men and women in most psychological variables. This study contributes information on women's greater empathic disposition in comparison with men by means of a longitudinal design in an adolescent population. 505 male and female adolescents aged between 13 and 16 years were evaluated at two different moments (grade 2 and grade 3, lower secondary education). They completed the Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents by Bryant and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index by Davis. The results confirm a greater empathic response in females than in males of the same age, differences growing with age. The sizes of the effect estimated in the second evaluation (average age 14 years) are large for emotional empathy and medium for cognitive empathy.

Desde la década de los 70 se incrementa el interés por analizar las diferencias de género en las variables psicológicas y se publican estudios empíricos y trabajos de meta-análisis que aportan evidencia de las diferencias entre varones y mujeres. Más recientemente se ha planteado la hipótesis de la similitud de género que defiende la semejanza entre varones y mujeres en la mayoría de los constructos psicológicos. Este estudio aporta datos sobre la mayor disposición empática en la mujer respecto al varón a través de un diseño longitudinal en población adolescente. 505 adolescentes varones y mujeres, con un rango de edad entre 13 y 16 años fueron evaluados en dos momentos temporales (2⍛ y 3⍛ curso de ESO). Cumplimentaron el Índice de Empatía de Bryant y el Índice de Reactividad Interpersonal de Davis. Los resultados confirman mayor respuesta empática en las adolescentes respecto a los varones de su misma edad y constatan que dichas diferencias aumentan con la edad. Los tamaños del efecto estimados en el segundo momento (edad media 14 años) son grandes en la empatía emocional y medios en la cognitiva.

Keywords

empathygender differencesadolescenceempatíadiferencias de géneroadolescencia
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , May 2009 , pp. 76 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Broidy, L., Cauffman, E., Espelage, D. L., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (2003). Sex differences in empathy and its relation to juvenile offending. Violence and Victims, 18(5), 503–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development, 53, 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, A. J., González, R., & Martorell, M. C. (2001). Variables relacionadas con la conducta prosocial en la infancia y la adolescencia: personalidad, autoconcepto y género. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 93, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003). Sociocognitive and behavioural correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23(1), 107–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlo, G., Koller, S. H., Eisenberg, N., Silva, M. S., & Frohlich, C. B. (1996). A cross-national study on the relations among prosocial moral reasoning, gender role orientations, and prosocial behaviours. Developmental Psychology, 32(2), 231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlo, G., Raffaelli, M., Laible, D. J., & Meyer, K. A. (1999). Why are girls less physically aggressive than boys? Personality and parenting mediators of physical aggression. Sex Roles, 40(9/10), 711–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J.(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85Google Scholar
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 10(3), 145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–697CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R.(1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94(1), 100–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., & Koller, S.(2001). Brazilian adolescents' prosocial moral judgment and behavior: relations to sympathy, perspective taking, gender-role orientation, and demographic characteristics. Child Development, 72(2), 518–534CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Endresen, I. M., & Olweus, D.(2002). Self-reported empathy in Norwegian adolescents: sex differences, age trends and relationships to bullying. In Stipek, D. & Bohart, A. (Eds.), Constructive and destructive behaviour: Implications for family, school and society (pp. 147–165). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 712–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggressive and Violent Behaviour, 9, 441–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Examining the relationship between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behaviour, 32, 540–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keung Ma, H. (2005). The relation of gender-role classifications to the prosocial and antisocial behaviour of Chinese adolescents. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(2), 189–201.Google Scholar
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45(4), 513–520).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, S. D., Wernsman, J., & Parnes, A. L. (2006). Understanding prosocial behaviour: The impact of empathy and gender among African American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(1), 135–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mestre, V., Frías, M. D., & Samper, P.(2004). La medida de la empatía: Análisis del Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Psicothema, 16(2), 255–260.Google Scholar
Mestre, V., Pérez-Delgado, E., Frías, M. D., & Samper, P. (1999). Instrumentos de evaluación de la empatía. In Pérez-Delgado, E. & Mestre, V. (Eds.), Psicología moral y crecimiento personal (pp.181–190). Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Mestre, V., Samper, P., & Frías, M. D. (2002). Procesos cognitivos y emocionales predictores de la conducta prosocial y agresiva: La empatía como factor modulador. Psicothema, 14, (2), 227–232Google Scholar
Mestre, V., Samper, P., & Frías, M. D. (2004). Personalidad y contexto familiar como factores predoctores de la disposición prosocial y antisocial de los adolescentes. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 36, 445–457Google Scholar
Mestre, V., Samper, P., Tur, A., Cortés, M. T., & Nácher, M. J. (2006). Conducta prosocial y procesos psicológicos implicados: Un estudio longitudinal en la adolescencia. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 23(2), 203–215Google Scholar
Mestre, V., Samper, P., Tur, A., Díez, I., & Nácher, M. J. (2001–2004). Estilos de crianza y variables escolares relacionadas con la conducta prosocial y la conducta agresiva: Un estudio longitudinal. R&D&I project, ref. BSO2001-304, Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología.Google Scholar
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pérez-Albéniz, A., de Paúl, J., Etxebarría, J., Montes, M. P., & Torres, E.(2003). Adaptación del Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) al español. Psicothema, 15(2), 267–272.Google Scholar
Sobral, J., Romero, E., Luengo, A., & Marzoa, J. (2000). Personalidad y conducta antisocial: Amplificadores individuales de los efectos contextuales. Psicothema, 12(4), 661–670Google Scholar
Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J.(1999). Social cognition and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,17, 435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. R. (2005). Gender differences in the relationship between empathy and forgiveness. The Journal of Social Psycholohy, 145(6), 673–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed