R J M van Donkersgoed1, S de Jong2, M Aan Het Rot3, L Wunderink4, P H Lysaker5, I Hasson-Ohayon6, A Aleman7, G H M Pijnenborg8. 1. University of Groningen, Department of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, Grote Kruisstraat 1/2, 9712 TS Groningen, the Netherlands; Dijk en Duin Parnassia Groep, Department of Psychotic Disorders, Westzijde 120, 1506 GB Zaandam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: r.van.donkersgoed@rug.nl. 2. University of Groningen, Department of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, Grote Kruisstraat 1/2, 9712 TS Groningen, the Netherlands; University of Amsterdam, Department of Clinical Psychology, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129-B, 1018 WT Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. University of Groningen, Department of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, Grote Kruisstraat 1/2, 9712 TS Groningen, the Netherlands. 4. GGZ Friesland, Sixmastraat 2, 8932 PA Leeuwarden, the Netherlands. 5. Roudeboush VA Medical Center, 1481 West 10th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202, United States of America; Indiana University School of Medicine, 340 W 10th St #6200, Indianapolis, IN 46202, United States of America. 6. Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. 7. University of Groningen, Department of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, Grote Kruisstraat 1/2, 9712 TS Groningen, the Netherlands; BCN Neuro Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 2, 9713 AW Groningen, the Netherlands. 8. University of Groningen, Department of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, Grote Kruisstraat 1/2, 9712 TS Groningen, the Netherlands; GGZ Noord-Drenthe, Department of Psychotic Disorders, Dennenweg 9, 9404 LA Assen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Empathy is an interpersonal process impaired in schizophrenia. Past studies have mainly used questionnaires or performance-based tasks with static cues to measure cognitive and affective empathy. We used the Empathic Accuracy Task (EAT) designed to capture dynamic aspects of empathy by using videoclips in which perceivers continuously judge emotionally charged stories. We compared individuals with schizophrenia with a healthy comparison group and assessed correlations among EAT and three other commonly used empathy measures. METHOD: Patients (n = 92) and a healthy comparison group (n = 42) matched for age, gender and education completed the EAT, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy and Faux Pas. Differences between groups were analyzed and correlations were calculated between empathy measurement instruments. RESULTS: The groups differed in EAT performance, with the comparison group outperforming patients. A moderating effect was found for emotional expressivity of the target: while both patients and the comparison group scored low when judging targets with low expressivity, the comparison group performed better than patients with more expressive targets. Though there were also group differences on the empathy questionnaires, EAT performance did not correlate with questionnaire scores. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with schizophrenia benefit less from the emotional expressivity of other people than the comparison group, which contributes to their impaired empathic accuracy. The lack of correlation between the EAT and the questionnaires suggests a distinction between self-report empathy and actual empathy performance. To explore empathic difficulties in real life, it is important to use instruments that take the interpersonal perspective into account.
INTRODUCTION: Empathy is an interpersonal process impaired in schizophrenia. Past studies have mainly used questionnaires or performance-based tasks with static cues to measure cognitive and affective empathy. We used the Empathic Accuracy Task (EAT) designed to capture dynamic aspects of empathy by using videoclips in which perceivers continuously judge emotionally charged stories. We compared individuals with schizophrenia with a healthy comparison group and assessed correlations among EAT and three other commonly used empathy measures. METHOD:Patients (n = 92) and a healthy comparison group (n = 42) matched for age, gender and education completed the EAT, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy and Faux Pas. Differences between groups were analyzed and correlations were calculated between empathy measurement instruments. RESULTS: The groups differed in EAT performance, with the comparison group outperforming patients. A moderating effect was found for emotional expressivity of the target: while both patients and the comparison group scored low when judging targets with low expressivity, the comparison group performed better than patients with more expressive targets. Though there were also group differences on the empathy questionnaires, EAT performance did not correlate with questionnaire scores. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with schizophrenia benefit less from the emotional expressivity of other people than the comparison group, which contributes to their impaired empathic accuracy. The lack of correlation between the EAT and the questionnaires suggests a distinction between self-report empathy and actual empathy performance. To explore empathic difficulties in real life, it is important to use instruments that take the interpersonal perspective into account.
Authors: Silvia Corbera; Bruce E Wexler; Morris D Bell; Godfrey Pearlson; Sophy Mayer; Brian Pittman; Vaishali Belamkar; Michal Assaf Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 11.225