Measurement of Individual Differences in State Empathy and Examination of a Model in Japanese University Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author(s), 

Thank you for your paper. These are some revisions suggested, as I believe this paper would be a great fit for the journal: 

“Title”. Looks like conclusions are based only on a very specific public from one specific country, Undergraduates psychology students from Japan, it needs to be specified, title and hypotheses need to be adjusted. 

“Abstract:” needs to be mentioned, why the topic is important. How does it address a specific gap in the field?

“Introduction”: needs to have a clear relation with the title of the paper from the beginning. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

 Need to have a detailed explanation. How is the topic original or relevant in the field? 

“References”: needs to be updated with recent titles from indexed publications

”sample design”. how did the author guarantee it with online data collection? What kind of probabilistic sample design was used? 

”Population”.  Needs to be explained why psychology students can be considered for this study and demonstrate that it does not create any bias.

” dates”. The dates of the study are not clear. If it was conducted in 2011 and 2019, why it is important to publish it now, and what is the difference between results in 2011 and 2019?

Originality. The author(s) should illustrate how this research differs from the literature in the field / or considered a contribution to the literature

There are several conclusions about similar studies made by other authors. It is relevant to underline at what points this research is novel. 

The implications section is missing: What are the implications of this article in the literature? Who do these results help (both scientifically and professionally)? Please, improve the explanations of what we have learned, develop and extend the managerial implications.

Thank you again for your work, and I wish you all the best in your future research!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your helpful review of our submission #psych-2450129, Measurement of Individual Differences of State Empathy and Examination of its Model.

Point 1: “Title”. Looks like conclusions are based only a very specific public from one specific country. Undergraduate psychology students from Japan, it needs to be specified, title and hypotheses need to be adjusted.

Response 1: We added “in Japanese University Students” to the title.

Title: Measurement of Individual Differences of State Empathy and Examination of its model in Japanese University Students.

Point 2: “Abstract” needs to be mentioned, why the topic is important. How does it address a specific gap in the field?

Response 2: We included a specific gap in the field and sentences which explained why the topic is important in Abstract, and rewrote it as follows: A typical state empathy research used perspective-taking instructions and examined the effect of instructions on empathy-related variables. But empathy arousing processes were not measured. Moreover, the effect of perspective-taking instructions has been questioned recently. Observers could imagine targets’ feelings without such instructions. This study evoked empathy in Japanese undergraduates (N=157) without such instructions, and based on participants’ responses to questionnaires, measured individual differences of antecedent, process, and intrapersonal outcome variables of state empathy, referring to the organizational model and theories of empathy arousing processes. The purpose of this study was to measure these variables, examine causal relationship between them using path analysis, and make clear how empathy occurs. Measuring these variables, we could suggest through which processes and antecedent factors empathic intrapersonal outcomes are produced. It is probably the first attempt to make clear how empathy occurs using social psychological framework and methodologies. This research was originally conducted in 2011 based on two similar research not published internationally, when only a part of variables was used in analyses. Afterwards, we conceived another analysis method, reanalyzed the data in 2019 and further reanalyzed in 2023 to obtain the final version of the results. Limitations, scientific and practical implications were discussed.

Point 3: “Introduction”: needs to have a clear relation with the title of the paper from the beginning. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

Response 3: We considerably rewrote “Introduction”. In first section of Introduction, we introduced typical and latest state empathy studies, and wrote that perspective-taking instructions have been often used and empathy arousing processes were not measured in these studies. We wrote that on the other hand, we used the organizational model as a framework of the study, and measured empathy arousing processes together with antecedent and intrapersonal outcome variables, referring to the theories of empathy arousing processes. The section of “History of the concept of empathy” was considerably shortened. After the section of “The present study”, the sections of “Current state empathy research” and “Purpose of this study” were added, and in these sections, we made clear the characteristics of this study and relevance of this study to other state empathy research.

Point 4: Needs to have a detailed explanation. How is the topic original or relevant in the field?

Response 4: A detailed explanation how is the topic original or relevant in the field was shown in Introduction section (L.190-211, 222-229) and Discussion section [L. 372-388; 503-514]

L.190-211 As mentioned above, previous studies about state empathy often used instructional set procedure developed by Stotland [12]. This procedure has been called perspective-taking instructions as a rule, and is also used today. This procedure has included imagine-self, imagine-other, and remain-objective instructions in most cases. Generally, perspective-taking intructions have been assumed to increase state empathic concern or prosocial behaviors (e.g., Batson and Shaw, 1991 [35]). However, the effect of perspective-taking became to be questioned recently. McAuliffe et al. (2020) [36] conducted a series of meta-analytic tests on experiments which examined the effects of perspective-taking (imagine-other or imagine-self) instructions, remain-objective instructions, or no instructions on participants’ empathic concern for distressed person. It was concluded that remain-objective instructions reduced empathic concern, but perspective-taking instructions did not significantly increase empathic concern [36]. Hodges and Wixwat (2022) [2] had participants read posts from targets describing their negative experiences under perspective-taking instructions (imagine how they feel) or no instructions and examined the effects of perspective-taking instructions on participants’ empathic concern for those targets, self emotions, and other emotions. As a result, these effects were insignificant, but participants in the perspective-taking condition were more likely to respond to the targets behaviorally [2].

　The process of imagine-self or imagine-other was referred to as role-taking in Hoffman’s theory of empathy arousing processes [5] and Davis’s organizational model [6]. The latest state empathy research [2] also used perspective-taking procedure. They asked participants to what extent they focussed on imagining how target felt for manipulation check, but they did not use this result for analysis. Tobari et al. [8] and the present study used the organizational model [6] as a framework of the study and measured this process using Role-taking scale. As these studies did not use perspective-taking instructions, probably, these studies could have measured spontaneous role-taking process. The present study also measured empathy arousing processes other than role-taking referring to Hoffman’s [5], Davis’s [6] or Feshbach’s [21] theories of empathy arousing processes. We measured individual differences of those empathy arousing processes as well as antecedent and intrapersonal outcome variables, and examined the relationship between them.  

L.222-229 In addition, we thought the causal relationship between Antecedents, Processes, and Intrapersonal outcomes which the organizational model [6] illustrates indicates how state empathy occurs (see Figure 1). Path analysis is an analysis method which measures strength of each of assumed causal relationships between observed variables using a path diagram. With this method, we can examine causal relationship between variables. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to measure individual differences of antecedent, process, and intrapersonal outcome variables, examine causal relationships between them using path analysis, and make clear through which processes and antecedent factors important intrapersonal outcomes (i.e., Parallel affective responding, Other-oriented responding and Understanding others’ feelings) are produced.

L.372-388 Some state empathy research showed participants some stimuli depicting target’s distress under perspective-taking instructions, measured participants’ emotinal responses, and examined the effects of perspective-taking instructions on those responses. But we thought some observers would imagine targets’ feeling without such instructions. We also thought if measurement of such processes is possible, measuring processes as well as empathic responses (outcomes) and antecedent factors, we could examine the relationship between them. However, an overwhelming majority of state empathy research did not measure processes. Tobari [7] and Tobari et al. [8] attempted to measure processes. And moreover, Tobari et al. [8] developed one process scale (Role-taking scale) [8] and three intrapersonal outcome scales [8].

We showed undergraduate participants film stimuli depicting targets’ distress. We did not use perspective-taking instructions. We prepared questionnaires which included above scales [8] and additional antecedent and process variables. We asked them to complete a questionnaire, and based on their responses, measured antecedent, process, and intrapersonal outcome variables.

We used the organizational model [6] as a framework for this study. This model originally included four constructs. Among them, Processes and Intrapersonal outcomes seemed to be main components of state empathy. In addition, the causal relationship between Antecedents, Processes, and Intrapersonal outcomes seemed to indicate how state empathy occurs (Figure 1). We measured variables of Antecedents, Processes, and Intrapersonal outcomes and examined the causal relationship between those variables using path analysis. Thereby, we attempted to make clear through which processes and antecedent factors, important empathic intrapersonal outcomes were produced.

L.503-514 In typical state empathy research, empathy arousing processes were often cntrolled by perspective taking instructions and the effects of such instructions on empathic responses were examined. Although processes have been regarded as important in the concept of empathy [5, 15], the studies which directly measured empathy arousing processes have been very rare. Using the organizational model [6] as a framework for the study, Tobari [7], Tobari et al. [8] attempted to measure processes, and developed process and intrapersonal outcome measures [8]. The present study used these measures and added some process and antecedent variables, referring to the organizational model [6] and theories of empathy arousing processes [5-6, 21]. The relationship between Antecedents, Processes, and Intrapersonal outcomes of the organizational model are considered to indicate how state empathy occurs. We evoked empathy in participants, measured individual differences of antecedents, process and intrapersonal outcome variables, and examined the causal relationship between them using path analysis. Thereby we could suggest through which processes and antecedent factors affective and cognitive empathic outcomes are produced. It is probably the first attempt to make clear how empathy occurs using framework and methodology of social psychology.

Point 5: “References”: needs to be updated with recent titles from indexed publications.

Response 5: We added several recent published articles. Added latest references are Hodges and Wixwat (2022) [2], Lehmann et al. (2022) [4] and Witherspoon et al. (2023) [38]. Batson et al. 1997[1], 2005[3], Batson & Shaw, 1991[35]; Tobari, 2005 [7]; Davis, 2006 [17]; Zaki et al., 2009 [27]; Kanske et al., 2015 [32]; Tholen et al., 2020 [33]; Singer & Klimecki, 2014 [34]; McAuliffe et al., 2020; and Levet-Jones et al., 2017 [37] were also added.

Point 6: “sample design”. How did the author guarantee it with online data collection? What kind of probabilistic sample design was used?

Response 6: We wrote problems of this study in 4.6. Limitations of this study as follows (L.460-467). Special sampling method was not used in this study. We referred to Tobari et al. [8] which targeted Japanese junior high school male and female students. We targeted male and female university students in this study. ……Moreover, this study and Tobari et al. [8] used the same stimuli and common variables with different populations (undergraduate vs junior high school students). As two studies showed similar relationships between variables, some degree of generalizability seems to exist. However, it is necessary to examine whether similar results can be obtained in more deliberately sampled population.

Point 7: “Population”. Needs to be explained why psychology students can be considered for this study and demonstrate that it does not create any bias.

Response 7: We wrote these problems of this study in 4.6. Limitations of this study (L.461-463, L.466-470). Participants were students majoring in education or psychology. They might be more empathic or intelligent than average people of the same age, but we think they were not extraordinarily empathic as helping professionals. ….. However, it is necessary to examine whether similar results can be obtained in more deliberately sampled population. It is also necessary to examine whether similar findings can be obtained in different populations, e.g., ………

Point 8: “dates”. The dates of the study are not clear. If it was conducted in 2011 and 2019, why it is important to publish it now, and what is the difference between results in 2011 and 2019?

Response 8: We explained the exact dates of the study in Introduction (L.22-27, 128, 132-134) and 2.2. Data collection (L.239-243), and 2.7. Statistical analyses (306-308). We also described these things in Abstract.

 L.22-27 The present research was originally conducted in 2011, based on these two studies [7-8], using the same stimuli and almost the same measures. Adding some variables, we measured individual differences of variables of Antecedents, Processes, and Intrapersonal outcomes. ……. At first, we used only a part of those variables in analyses. But afterwards, we noticed potentiality of this research, conceived another analysis method, reanalyzed the data in 2019, and further updated analyses in 2013. We examined the relationship between the variables of above three constructs.

2011. 128 Adding these process variables, we conducted a similar research based on Tobari [7] and Tobari et al. [8] in 2011.
2012. 132-134 Keeping a close watch on the movement of empathy research in various fields of psychology afterwards, we noticed potentiality of this research. We conducted a full review of this study, conceived another analysis method, and updated analyses in 2019 and 2023.

L.239-243 This study was originally conducted in 2011 at Waseda University in accordance with above mentioned ethical guidelines.

L.306-308 The first author conducted original analyses in 2011, when antecedent variables were not used in analyses. Afterward, the first author conceived another analysis method of this data in 2019, reanalyzed, and further reanalyzed the same data in 2013. Below are the results of the final version of analyses.

Point 9: Originality. The author(s) should illustrate how this research differs from the literature in the field/ or considered a contribution to the literature.

Response 9: We explained originality of this study in Abstract, Introduction section [L.203-211, L. 217-229] and Discussion section [L. 372-388, 504-529].

1. 203-211 The process of imagine-self or imagine-other was referred to as role-taking in Hoffman’s theory of empathy arousing processes [5] and Davis’s organizational model [6]. The latest state empathy research [2] also used perspective-taking procedure. They asked participants to what extent they focussed on imagining how target felt for manipulation check, but they did not use this result for analysis. Tobari et al. [8] and the present study used the organizational model [6] as a framework of the study and measured this process using Role-taking scale. As these studies did not use perspective-taking instructions, probably, these studies could have measured spontaneous role-taking process. The present study also measured empathy arousing processes other than role-taking referring to Hoffman’s [5], Davis’s [6] or Feshbach’s [21] theories of empathy arousing processes. We measured individual differences of those empathy arousing processes as well as antecedent and intrapersonal outcome variables, and examined the relationship between them.

Point 10: There are several conclusions about similar studies made by other authors. It is relevant a what points this research is novel.

1. 217-229 We thought the organizational model [6] and theories of empathy arousing processes which Hoffman [5, 15], Davis [6], and Feshbach [22] explained are very important and useful theories, although they have scarcely been utilized or examined demonstratively. We attempted to measure processes and antecedent factors based on these theories. We also measured three intrapersonal outcome variables which correspond to three important facets of empathy proposed by some neuropsychologists [22-23].

In addition, we thought the causal relationship between Antecedents, Processes, and Intrapersonal outcomes the organizational model [6] illustrates indicates how state empathy occurs (see Figure 1). Path analysis is an analysis method which measures strength of each of assumed causal relationships between observed variables using a path diagram. With this method, we can examine causal relationship between variables. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to measure individual differences of antecedent, process, and intrapersonal outcome variables, examine causal relationships between them using path analysis, and make clear through which processes and antecedent factors important intrapersonal outcomes (i.e., Parallel affective responding, Other-oriented responding and Understanding others’ feelings) are produced.

1. 372-388 Some state empathy research showed participants some stimuli depicting target’s distress under perspective-taking instructions, measured participants’ emotional responses, and examined the effects of perspective-taking instructions on those responses. But we thought some observers would imagine targets’ feeling without such instructions. We also thought if measurement of such processes is possible, measuring processes as well as empathic responses and antecedent factors, we could examine the relationship between them. However, an overwhelming majority of state empathy research did not measure processes. Tobari [7] and Tobari et al. [8] attempted to measure processes. And moreover, Tobari et al. [8] developed one process scale (Role-taking scale) [8] and three intrapersonal outcome scales [8].

We showed undergraduate participants film stimuli depicting targets’ distress. We did not use perspective-taking instructions. We prepared questionnaires which included above scales [8] and additional antecedent and process variables. We asked them to complete a questionnaire, and based on their responses, measured antecedent, process, and intrapersonal outcome variables.

We used the organizational model [6] as a framework for this study. This model originally included four constructs. Among them, Processes and Intrapersonal outcomes seemed to be main components of state empathy. In addition, the causal relationship between Antecedents, Processes, and Intrapersonal outcomes seemed to indicate how state empathy occurs (Figure 1). We measured variables of Antecedents, Processes, and Intrapersonal outcomes and examined the causal relationship between those variables using path analysis. Thereby, we attempted to make clear through which processes and antecedent factors, important empathic intrapersonal outcomes were produced.

1. 504-529 In typical state empathy research, empathy arousing processes were often controlled by perspective taking instructions and the effects of such instructions on empathic responses were examined. Although processes have been regarded as important in the concept of empathy [5, 15], the studies which directly measured empathy arousing processes have been very rare. Using the organizational model [6] as a framework for the study, Tobari [7], Tobari et al. [8] attempted measure processes, and developed process and intrapersonal outcome measures [8]. The present study used these measures and added some process and antecedent variables, referring to the organizational model [6] and theories of empathy arousing processes [5-6, 21]. The relationship between Antecedents, Processes, and Intrapersonal outcomes of the organizational model are considered to indicate how state empathy occurs. We evoked empathy in participants, measured individual differences of antecedents, process and intrapersonal outcome variables, and examined the causal relationship between them using path analysis. Thereby we could suggest through which processes and antecedent factors affective and cognitive empathic outcomes are produced. It is probably the first attempt to make clear how empathy occurs using framework and methodology of social psychology. The findings, ideas, and methodologies of this study are considered scientific implications of this study. However, this research has some limitations (e.g., sampling methods). It is necessary to examine the same results could be reproduced with other larger population. Moreover, the state empathy measures used in this study were constructed based on the stimuli which we used in this study and the films we used are now publicly not available. Validation and refinement as well as development of measures would be also necessary.

Practical implications of this study are that state empathy measures or the methodology of this study could be utilized in neuropsychological research or research of other fields of psychology. In neuropsychological research, trait empathy scales, or affect and cognitive outcome measures have been often utilized. But usually, process measures were not used. Process measures would be particularly useful, because it is assumed that neuropsychological research have been generally concerned with mechanism through which empathy is produced or expressed. The type of stimuli which we used in this study could be used in these studies. In social psychology, behavioral outcomes (e.g., prosocial behaviors) have been often utilized and emphasized. The present study did not use behavioral outcome variables, because our primary concerns were in intrapersonal processes and mechanisms of empathy and their antecedents. But adding variables of interpersonal behavioral outcomes, i.e., prosocial behaviors or decisions to the variables used in this study, it is possible to examine which component of state empathy most contribute to behavioral outcomes.

Point 10: There are several conclusions about similar studies made by other authors. It is relevant a what points this research is novel.

Response 10: The conclusions of latest similar studies were as follows. For example, Lehmann et al. [4] found that stronger experience of shared negative affect and correct mental state inference were associated with increased prosocial decisions, and feeling compassion led to an increase of prosocial decisions (L. 182-186).

Hodges and Wixwat [2] found that the effects of perspective-taking instructions on participants’ empathic concern for the targets, self-emotions, and other emotions were insignificant, but participants in the perspective-taking condition were more likely to respond to the target behavior behaviorally (L.198-202).

These authors measured similar variables to ours and their findings did not contradict our findings. But used measures were not identical with our measures. They did not use process variables and we did not use behavioral variables. Therefore, comparison with them seemed to be difficult. We added following sentences in 4.8. Scientific and Practical Implications (L.525-531). In social psychology, behavioral outcomes (e.g., prosocial behaviors) have been often utilized and emphasized. Latest studies which used similar variable as ours [2, 4] used behavioral outcome measures and examined relationship between them and empathy-related variables. The present study did not use behavioral outcome variables, because our primary concerns were in intrapersonal processes and mechanisms of empathy and their antecedents. But adding variables of intrapersonal outcomes, i.e., prosocial behaviors or decisions to the variables used in this study, it would be possible to examine which component of state empathy most contributes to behavioral outcomes. This will be probably one of future directions.

Point 11: The implications section is missing. What are the implications of this article in the literature? Who do these results help (both scientifically and professionally)? Please, improve the explanations of what we have learned, develop and extend the managerial implications.

Response 11: We included 4.8. Scientific and Practical Implications (L.503-533) in Discussion.

Reviewer 2 Report

A manuscript with a very important and interesting title.

The abstract needs some refinement. The authors do not write when they conducted the research, on what number of students, or what the purpose of the work was. The sentence "The methodology of measurement was based on several previous eight studies about state empathy" does not tell the reader much. Therefore, it should be removed and substantively written what exactly was the purpose of the work.

In the introduction, I recommend highlighting what is novel about the work and what research gap the work fills.

2. Materials and Methods

It is recommended to supplement this section with information on how respondents were selected for the study and how the questionnaire was constructed.

In line 310 the authors write: "A path analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Amos" I recommend briefly describing what this analysis is all about.

The strong point is a very interesting topic and the methodology and idea for the article, while the weak point is a very poor overview of literature based on very old positions (1937, or 1908). I recommend removing them and replacing them with the latest studies, especially from 2022 and 2023.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your helpful review of our submission #psych-2450129, Measurement of Individual Differences of State Empathy and Examination of its Model.

Point 1: The abstract needs some refinement. The authors do not write when they conducted the research, on what number of students, or what the purpose of the work was. The sentence “The methodology of measurement was based on several previous eight studies about state empathy” does not tell the reader much. Therefore, it should be removed and substantively written what exactly was the purpose of this work.

Response 1: We wrote when we conducted the research, on that number of students, or what the purpose of the work was. The sentence “The methodology of …state empathy” was removed. We rewrote Abstract as follows: A typical state empathy research used perspective-taking instructions and examined the effect of instructions on empathy-related variables. But empathy arousing processes were not measured. Moreover, the effect of perspective-taking instructions has been questioned recently. Observers could imagine targets’ feelings without such instructions. This study evoked empathy in Japanese undergraduates (N=157) without such instructions, and based on participants’ responses to questionnaires, measured individual differences of antecedent, process, and intrapersonal outcome variables of state empathy, referring to the organizational model and theories of empathy arousing processes. The purpose of this study was to measure these variables, examine causal relationship between them using path analysis, and make clear how empathy occurs. Measuring these variables, we could suggest through which processes and antecedent factors empathic intrapersonal outcomes are produced. It is probably the first attempt to make clear how empathy occurs using social psychological framework and methodologies. This research was originally conducted in 2011 based on two similar research not published internationally, when only a part of variables was used in analyses. Afterwards, we conceived another analysis method, reanalyzed the data in 2019 and further reanalyzed in 2023 to obtain the final version of the results. Limitations, scientific and practical implications were discussed.

Point 2: In the introduction, I recommend highlighting what is novel about the work and what research gap the work fills.

Response 2: We rewrote Introduction substantially. We wrote what is novel about the work and what research gap the work fills on L.8-24, L.99-103, L.190-211, L. 217-229 in Introduction.

L.8-24 Particularly, perspective-taking instruction procedure has been often used. Perspective-taking instructions are considered to promote perspective-taking process, but some people might imagine another’s feelings without such instructions. Empathic responses are considered to be produced through multiple processes (Hoffman, 1984 [5]; Davis, 1994 [6]). Perspective-taking or role-taking (imagining how others feel) can be regarded as one of empathy arousing processes. If it is possible to measure empathy arousing processes, measuring those processes as well as empathic responses, researchers could examine the relationship between them.

An overwhelming majority of state empathy research have not measured empathy arousing processes. However, Tobari (2005) [7] and Tobari et al. (2010) [8] evoked empathy in participants with film stimuli, and referring to the organizational model which Davis (1994) [6] proposed and Hoffman’s [5] theory of empathic arousal, measured empathy arousing processes as well as empathic responses. …………

…….

The present research was originally conducted in 2011, based on these two studies [7-8], using the same stimuli and almost the same measure. Adding some variables, we measured individual differences of variables of Antecedents, Processes, and Intrapersonal outcomes. We did not use instruction procedure as Tobari [7] and Tobari et al. [8].

L.99-103 Applying to the constructs of the organizational model, the above previous state empathy studies [12-13, 18-20] measured Intrapersonal outcomes, in particular affective outcomes, but Processes were not measured directly. Processes were often controlled by instructional sets. However, some observers might have imagined another person’s feelings and empathized with that person without such instructions. If tools to measure empathy arousing processes are created, the relationship between Processes and Intrapersonal outcomes could be examined using them.

L.190-211 As mentioned above, previous studies about state empathy often used instructional set procedure developed by Stotland [12]. This procedure has been called perspective-taking instructions as a rule, and is also used today. This procedure has included imagine-self, imagine-other, and remain-objective instructions in most cases. Generally, perspective-taking instructions have been assumed to increase state empathic concern or prosocial behaviors (e.g., Batson and Shaw, 1991 [35]). However, the effect of perspective-taking became to be questioned recently. ……...

　The process of imagine-self or imagine-other was referred to as role-taking in Hoffman’s theory of empathy arousing processes [5] and Davis’s organizational model [6]. The latest state empathy research [2] also used perspective-taking procedure. They asked participants to what extent they focussed on imagining how target felt for manipulation check, but they did not use this result for analysis. Tobari et al. [8] and the present study used the organizational model [6] as a framework of the study and measured this process using Role-taking scale. As these studies did not use perspective-taking instructions, probably, these studies could have measured spontaneous role-taking process. The present study also measured empathy arousing processes other than role-taking referring to Hoffman’s [5], Davis’s [6] and Feshbach’s [21] theories of empathy arousing processes. We measured individual differences of those empathy arousing processes as well as antecedent and intrapersonal outcome variables, and examined the relationship between them. 

L.217-229 We thought the organizational model [6] and theories of empathy arousing processes which Hoffman [5, 15], Davis [6], and Feshbach [21] explained are very important and useful theories, although they have scarcely been utilized or examined demonstratively. We attempted to measure processes and antecedent factors based on these theories. We also measured three intrapersonal outcome variables which correspond to three important facets of empathy proposed by some neuropsychologists [22-23].

In addition, we thought the causal relationship between Antecedents, Processes, and Intrapersonal outcomes the organizational model [6] illustrates indicates how state empathy occurs (see Figure 1). Path analysis is an analysis method which measures strength of each of assumed causal relationships between observed variables using a path diagram. With this method, we can examine causal relationship between variables. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to measure individual differences of antecedent, process, and intrapersonal outcome variables, examine causal relationships between them using path analysis, and make clear through which processes and antecedent factors important intrapersonal outcomes (i.e., Parallel affective responding, Other-oriented responding and Understanding others’ feelings) are produced.

Point 3: It is recommended to supplement Material and Methods section with information on how respondents were selected for the study and how the questionnaire was constructed.

Response 3: Special sampling method was not used in this study. We wrote this information in 4.6. Limitations of this study (L.460-467). We wrote there that it is necessary to examine whether similar results can be obtained in more deliberately sampled population.

We wrote how the questionnaire was constructed in 2.1. Preparation of questionnaires (L.233-236) and 2.6. Measures (L.266-304). Trait empathy questionnaire and state empathy questionnaire were shown in Supplementary Materials; English version of Questionnaires.

L.233-236 We prepared trait empathy questionnaire and state empathy questionnaire in advance. The trait empathy questionnaire was a part of the questionnaire used for our another research. The state empathy questionnaire was made after the questionnaire which Tobari et al. [8] used, adding some questions and items.

L.267-304 As a trait empathy measure, Multidimensional empathy scale [39] which consists of Empathic concern, Cognitive empathy, Personal distress, and Fantasy subscales was used. These subscales resemble the four subscales of IRI [16], but slightly different. Empathic concern scale [39] includes items representing sharing sadness or joy with others, motivation to help sufferers and empathic anger (feeling anger toward a person who maltreated others). Cognitive empathy scale [39] includes an item representing sensitive emotion cognition, in addition to the items representing perspective-taking or role-taking. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which each item is true of themselves on a 5-point scale. Multidimensional empathy scale was included in the trait empathy questionnaire.

The state empathy questionnaire included several questions: (1) how you are feeling now, (2) how much commonality you feel between yourself and the protagonist, (3) how you are feeling toward the protagonist of the film, (4) how you viewed the film, (5) how you think the protagonist felt, (6) how serious you feel the situation of the protagonist is. For the question (1), (3), (4), (5), several items were listed up. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which each item is true of themselves on a 5-point scale. The questions (1) and (5) were devised after the technique developed by Feshbach and Roe [11] who asked participants how they felt and how the protagonist felt.

Parallel affective responding scale [8] consists of six items representing participants’ feelings immediately after viewing each film. These items were included in the listed items for the question (1). Other-oriented responding scale [8] consists of seven items representing participants’ feelings toward the protagonist of the film. These items were included in the listed items for the question (3). Role-taking scale [8] consists of three items indicating that observers viewed the film putting themselves in the protagonists’ shoes. These items were included in the listed items for the question (4). Following five items were added in the listed items for the question (4): (a) I paid attention to the protagonist’s facial expression, viewing the film; (b) I paid attention to the protagonist’s behavior, viewing the film; (c) I paid attention to the protagonist’s situation, viewing the film; (d) I was caught up in the protagonist’s feelings; (e) I remembered my experience. The item (d) was named Automatic process hereafter. These items were also regarded as process variables. Understanding others’ feelings scale [8] consists of six items representing how participants recognized the target’s feelings. These items were included in the listed items for the question (5). The six adjectives consisting of this scale were identical to the six adjectives consisting of Parallel affective responding scale. As the targets’ feelings were considered to be rather easily recognized, participants were judged to feel the same feelings as the target, when they felt the same feelings represented by the adjectives included in Understanding others’ feelings scale.

English version of the items of the scales were shown in Appendix. Translation of the items of Multidimensional empathy scale were revised by Cactus Communications Pvtl. Ltd. (editage) in 2009.

The question (2) and (6) were the questions to measure situational antecedent variables. Commonality was measured as the response to the question (2). Participants were asked to rate the extent of commonality they felt between themselves and the protagonist on a 5-point scale. Seriousness was measured as the response to the question (6). Participants were asked to rate the extent of seriousness of the situation on a 6-point scale. The questionnaire also included the question which asked participants whether they had ever viewed the films.

　Trait empathy questionnaire and state empathy questionnaire were shown in Supplement Materials: English version of Questionnaires. These questionnaires were originally written in Japanese. First author translated them into English. Although the original trait empathy questionnaire also included items of other scales and the original state empathy questionnaire included more items, we showed there the only items which we used in analyses of this study.

Point 4: In line 310 the authors write: “ A path analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Amos” I recommend briefly describing what this analysis is all about.

Response 4: We briefly described what a path analysis is all about in 1.6. Purpose of this study. L.223-225. Path analysis is an analysis method which measures strength of each of assumed causal relationships between observed variables using a path diagram. With this method, we can examine causal relationship between variables.

Point 5: The strong point is a very interesting topic and the methodology and idea for the article, while the weak point is a very poor overview of literature based on very old positions (1937, or 1908). I recommend removing them and replacing them with the latest studies, especially from 2022 and 2023.

Response 5: We added latest studies: Hodges & Wixwat, 2022 [2], Lehmann et al., 2022 [4], Witherspoon et al., 2023 [38]. We also added Batson et al., 1997 [1], Batson et al., 2005 [3], Tobari, 2005 [7], Davis, 2006 [17], Zaki et al., 2009 [27], Kanske et al., 2015 [32], Tholen et al., 2020 [33], Singer & Klimecki, 2014 [34], Batson & Shaw, 1991 [35], McAuliffe et al., 2020 [36], and Levett-Jones et al., 2017 [37]. We removed several old studies.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made corrections to the work, but they were not marked in yellow, which is why it is difficult to check and refer to all recommendations. It is recommended that the authors introduce the changes they have made in yellow in the text of the paper.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for your helpful review of our submission #psych-2450129, Measurement of Individual Differences of State Empathy and Examination of its Model.

I apologize for not highlighting revised sentences. Moreover, I carelessly submitted a little older version of the revised manuscript. I requested rapid English editing for our manuscript according to your recommendation. I further revised our manuscript based on the version corrected by the English editor. The revisions to the original version (2023.-05-29) of the manuscript were highlighted in yellow.

Point 1: The abstract needs some refinement. The authors do not write when they conducted the research, on what number of students, or what the purpose of the work was. The sentence “The methodology of measurement was based on several previous eight studies about state empathy” does not tell the reader much. Therefore, it should be removed and substantively written what exactly was the purpose of this work.

Response 1: We wrote when we conducted the research, on what number of students, or what the purpose of the work was. The sentence “The methodology of …state empathy” was removed. We rewrote Abstract as follows:

A typical state empathy research used perspective-taking instructions and examined the effect of instructions on empathy-related variables. Empathy-arousing processes were generally not measured. Moreover, the effect of perspective-taking instructions has been questioned recently. Observers could imagine targets’ feelings without such instructions. This study evoked empathy in Japanese undergraduates (N=157) without instructional procedure, and based on participants’ responses to questionnaires, measured individual differences of antecedent, process, and intrapersonal outcome variables of state empathy, referring to the organizational model and theories of empathy-arousing processes. The purpose of this study was to measure these variables, examine the causal relationship between them using path analysis, and clarify how empathy occurs. In this way, we could suggest through which processes and antecedent factors intrapersonal empathic outcomes are produced. It is probably the first attempt to clarify how empathy occurs using a social psychological study framework and questionnaire method. This research was originally conducted in 2011 based on two similar research not published internationally, when only a part of variables was used in our analyses. Afterwards, we constructed another analysis method, reanalyzed the data in 2019 and further reanalyzed in 2023 to obtain the final version of the results. Limitations, scientific and practical implications were discussed.

Point 2: In the introduction, I recommend highlighting what is novel about the work and what research gap the work fills.

Response 2: We rewrote Introduction substantially. We added two sections in Introduction, i.e., 1.5. Current studies about state empathy, 1.6 (L.160-220). 1.6. Purpose of this study. (L.221-234)

 We wrote what is novel about the work and what research gap the work fills on L.9-15, L.100-104, L. 207-216, L.222-224, and L.227-234 in Introduction.

L.9-15 Perspective-taking instruction procedures have been used particularly often. Perspective-taking instructions are considered to promote perspective-taking process, but some people might imagine another’s feelings without such instructions. Empathic responses are considered to be produced through multiple processes (Hoffman, 1984 [5]; Davis, 1994 [6]). Perspective-taking or role-taking (imagining how others feel) can be regarded as one of empathy-arousing processes. If it is possible to measure empathy-arousing processes, by measuring these processes as well as empathic responses, researchers could examine the relationship between them.

An overwhelming majority of state empathy research have not measured empathy arousing processes.

L.100-104 previous state empathy studies measured intrapersonal outcomes, particularly affective outcomes, but processes were not directly measured. processes were often controlled by instructional sets. However, some observers might have imagined another person’s feelings and empathized with that person without such instructions. If tools to measure empathy-arousing processes are created, the relationship between processes and intrapersonal outcomes could be examined using them.

L.207-216

　The process of imagine-self or imagine-other was referred to as role-taking in Hoffman’s theory of empathy-arousing processes [5] and Davis’s organizational model [6]. The latest state empathy research [2] also used perspective-taking procedure. They asked participants to what extent they focused on imagining how target felt for manipulation check, but they did not use this result for analysis. Tobari et al. [8] and the present study used the organizational model [6] as the study framework and measured this process using role-taking scale. As these studies did not use perspective-taking instructions, probably, these studies could have measured spontaneous role-taking process. The present study also measured empathy- arousing processes other than role-taking referring to Hoffman’s [5], Davis’s [6] and Feshbach’s [21] theories of empathy-arousing processes. We measured individual differences of these empathy-arousing processes as well as antecedent and intrapersonal outcome variables, and examined the relationship between them. 

L.222-224

We thought the organizational model [6] and theories of empathy-arousing processes which Hoffman [5, 15], Davis [6], and Feshbach [21] explained are very important and useful theories, although they have scarcely been utilized or demonstratively examined. We attempted to measure processes and antecedent factors based on these theories.

1. 227-234

  In addition, we thought the causal relationship between antecedents, processes, and intrapersonal outcomes that the organizational model illustrates indicate how state empathy occurs. …………..the purpose of this study was to measure individual differences between antecedent, process, and intrapersonal outcome variables, examine causal relationships between them using path analysis, and make clear through which processes and antecedent factors important intrapersonal outcomes are produced.

Point 3: It is recommended to supplement Material and Methods section with information on how respondents were selected for the study and how the questionnaire was constructed.

Response 3: Special sampling method was not used in this study. We wrote this information in 4.6. Limitations of this study (L.468-476). We wrote there that it is necessary to examine whether similar results can be obtained in more deliberately sampled population.

We wrote how the questionnaire was constructed in 2.1. Preparation of questionnaires (L.237-240) and 2.6. Measures (L.271,307-311). Trait empathy questionnaire and state empathy questionnaire were shown in Supplementary Materials: English version of Questionnaires.

L.237-240

2.1. Preparation of questionnaires

We prepared trait empathy questionnaire and state empathy questionnaire in advance. The trait empathy questionnaire was a part of the questionnaire used for another research. The state empathy questionnaire was made after the questionnaire which Tobari et al. [8] used, adding some questions and items mentioned above.

L.307-311

　Trait empathy questionnaire and state empathy questionnaire were shown in Supplement Materials: English version of Questionnaires. These questionnaires were originally written in Japanese. First author translated them into English. Although the original trait empathy questionnaire also included items of other scales and the original state empathy questionnaire included more items, we showed there the only items which we used in analyses of this study.

Point 4: In line 310 the authors write: “A path analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Amos” I recommend briefly describing what this analysis is all about.

Response 4: We briefly described what a path analysis is all about in 1.6. Purpose of this study. L.228-230.

Path analysis is an analysis method which measures strength of each of assumed causal relationships between observed variables using a path diagram. With this method, we can examine the causal relationship between variables.

Point 5: The strong point is a very interesting topic and the methodology and idea for the article, while the weak point is a very poor overview of literature based on very old positions (1937, or 1908). I recommend removing them and replacing them with the latest studies, especially from 2022 and 2023.

Response 5: We added latest studies: Hodges & Wixwat, 2022 [2], Lehmann et al., 2022 [4], Witherspoon et al., 2023 [38].

We also added Batson et al., 1997 [1], Batson et al., 2005 [3], Tobari, 2005 [7], Davis, 2006 [17], Zaki et al., 2009 [27], Kanske et al., 2015 [32], Tholen et al., 2020 [33], Singer & Klimecki, 2014 [34], Batson & Shaw, 1991 [35], McAuliffe et al., 2020 [36], and Levett-Jones et al., 2017 [37]. We removed several old studies.

 We highlighted newly added references in References in yellow.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript looks much better. I recommend improving the references by adding the following positions:

DOI: 10.26552/com.C.2016.1A.28-35

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111914

| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-28098-x

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our revision of #psych-2450129, Measurement of Individual Differences of State Empathy and Examination of its Model.

We appreciate your recommendation to add three articles.

We added them in References and briefly explained their contents and implications in the manuscript.

1. Introduction
2. 8 ; Gamble et al, 2023 [5])

1. 160 1.5. Current studies about state empathy
2. 217-219 Gamble et al. [5] examined the relationship between pandemic fatigue as a cognitive load, state empathic concern for people vulnerable to COVID-19, and prosocial behavior (support for public health measures) and found that empathic concern moderates the negative effect of pandemic fatigue on prosocial behavior.

L.509 4.8. Scientific and practical implications

1. 537-542 The present study focused on empathy for distressed people. Some empathy research focused on empathy for animals (e.g., Peňaherrera-Aguirre et al., 2023 [43]). The methodology of the present study could partly be utilized in such research. However, the idea or methodology of this study could not be utilized in all kinds of empathy research. For example, Blaskova et al. [44] suggested that open and effective communication, which seems to include empathy, tends to promote positive motivation in the organization. Perhaps, such type of empathy could not be studied only using the organizational model as the study framework. Another theorization might be required in that case.

In the research manuscript, we highlighted added or revised words or sentences in yellow.

A few sentences in 4.1. Measurement of intrapersonal outcome variables and 4.8. Scientific and practical implications were omitted.