Journal of Adult Development, Vol. 6, No.

4, 1999

Response to Lovell: "Cognitive Development

and Empathy"
Susan L. Yardley, Ph.D.

The primary goal of Lovell's investigation entitled, "Cognitive Development and Empathy," was
to replicate the results of earlier investigations that
found a significant relationship between level of cognitive development and empathy. Specifically, this
study examined whether level of empathy increases
with more mature levels of thought as measured by
the Hogan Empathy Scale (Hogan, 1969) and the
Learning Environment Preferences Scale (Moore,
1987, 1989), respectively. Lovell administered these
scales to a large sample of graduate students enrolled
in counseling psychology programs and confirmed
the association between cognitive development and
empathy. Furthermore, the results revealed a "steplike" pattern consistent with structural stage theories
of cognitive development. Lovell discusses the potential implications of the results with regard to the education of counselors and the possible benefit of educational reform in higher education. I will discuss the
ideas that I found most interesting about the study,
how the results might relate to similar lines of research, and my thoughts with regard to the application of these findings to the education and training
of counselors.
One of the most difficult aspects of psychological
research is to define the construct being measured.
The concept of empathy has proven to be especially
difficult for researchers to define. Empathy seems to
involve two components: ability to understand another person's feelings or "social insight" and the
ability to experience an affective response based on
that information.
The Hogan Empathy Scale, utilized in this study,

was designed to measure the degree to which one

exhibits an empathic disposition and adopts a moral
point of view. It is a self-report scale that has been
shown to correlate with peer ratings and personality
test scales associated with prosocial traits (Hogan,
1969). This measure has had success in categorizing
individuals into groups based on high or low empathic
ability scores. It was not designed, however, to describe the specific interpersonal skills or affective experience and behavior of these individuals. I believe
that this is an important step in the future of research
on empathy. Feshbach and Roe (1968) note that there
is evidence that social understanding can occur independently of the affective response. Therefore, it is
important to distinguish between someone who is
socially skilled and someone who is genuine in their
response. Furthermore, we must gain a better understanding of the specific characteristics involved in
empathic behavior in order to apply this information
to the training of counselors. The majority of graduate students and mental health professionals whom
I have encountered are quite capable of identifying
the "feelings behind what is being said." There is a
unique quality, however, to the way some respond
to their patient's emotions and I believe it is this
response that sets apart the outstanding clinicians
from the adequate ones. I can recall a few occasions
in which I observed a supervisor or colleague at work
and wondered what it was that made their approach
so powerful. In my mind, it was not any overt statement or behavior, but a more subtle expression from
which the patient benefited most.
I agree with Lovell's recommendation to conduct qualitative research studies for this reason. In
order to progress beyond our first definition of empathy we must examine how different people behave
in response to another's emotional state and study
the subtle cues involved in counseling. The majority
of interpersonal behavior is, in fact, nonverbal and

1Woodburn

Center for Community Mental Health, Annandale,

Virginia 22003.
2Direct correspondence to Susan L. Yardley, Ph.D., Emergency
Services, Woodburn Center for Community Mental Health, 3340
Woodburn Road, Annandale, Virginia 22003.

227
1068-0667/99/1000-0227$16.00/0 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation

228
depends on cues such as facial expression and tone
of voice, which cannot be measured without observational approaches. This task might require research
designs encompassing self-report inventories as well
as observation and evaluation of actual empathic behavior. Only through such investigations will we be
able to describe the interactive nature of empathic
behavior and the manner in which one expresses or
reacts to the feelings of others.
This study brought to mind another area of research that may help to clarify the nature of empathy
and its association with cognitive development. A
group of individuals at the opposite end of the spectrum from counselors (people who help others) are
criminals (people who hurt others). Many studies
have attempted to understand antisocial behavior
and the apparent lack of empathy that sociopaths
and other criminals exhibit. I believe that sociopathic
behavior may shed light on the concept of empathy.
As stated earlier, empathy involves different processes. To empathize with someone, one must be able
to identify the behavior (e.g., smile), understand the
feeling (e.g., happy), and be able to relate to it. Feshbach and Feshbach (1969) described the last element
as a "vicarious emotional response of a perceiver
to the emotional experience of a perceived object."
Since it appears that sociopaths lack this ability, it
may be helpful to compare this group to counselors
who are adept in interpreting emotions and exhibiting empathy. Another reason the comparison of
these groups may help in interpreting the findings of
this study is that research on sociopaths finds that
these individuals do not typically exhibit deficits in
cognitive functioning (e.g., Hart, Forth, and Hare,
1990). In fact, they are often described as intelligent
and creative individuals. Damasio (1994) notes that
"the sociopaths about whom we hear in the daily
news are intelligent and logically competent individuals who are deprived of normal emotional processing.
Their irrational behavior is destructive to self and
society" (p. 144). LovelFs study suggests that higher
cognitive functioning is associated with higher levels
of empathy in counselors, whereas studies on sociopaths indicate that higher cognitive functioning does
not lead to higher levels of empathy. These findings
appear contradictory. Obviously, the relationship between cognitive functioning and empathy is a complex one and it cannot be assumed that cognitive
development will automatically result in higher levels
of empathy in all individuals. Goleman (1995) proposes that there are individuals who have excellent
cognitive capabilities, but poor "emotional intelli-

Yardley
gence," as well as others who are limited cognitively,
but exhibit flair in social situations. Further research
with these groups may provide a clearer understanding of the relationship between cognitive development and empathic behavior. It may also help to
identify whether there are specific cognitive skills
associated with empathy while others are not.
I think the most unique element of this study
involves the comparison of empathy scores among
subjects who fell in the four epistemic levels of
cognitive development based on Perry's scheme
(1968, 1981). Lovell found that subjects with the
highest level of cognitive development also had the
highest scores on the Hogan Empathy Scale, while
subjects in the second highest cognitive group had
the second highest empathy scores and so on. This
finding suggests that empathy increases in a "steplike" progression in much the same way cognitive
development occurs. This finding is more impressive
than a correlational association and is evidence
that empathy relies, in some way, on cognitive
developmental level. We must now attempt to break
down and separate these processes for a more
complete understanding.
Lovell suggests that, in order to strengthen the
emotional skills of counselors, educational programs
in counseling should place a stronger emphasis on
the cognitive development of students in such programs. It is also suggested that it may be possible to
design specific training exercises to encourage cognitive development and, consequently, increase empathic ability. The notion of training individuals to
relate better with others is a common goal of most
psychological therapies. It is expected that assisting
the patient in seeing another perspective will lead to
a change in attitude, feeling, and/or behavior. Clinicians and educators have also developed "social
skills" strategies to "teach" patients with disorders
such as schizophrenia, autism, and conduct disorder
how to identify, relate, and respond appropriately to
the feelings of others. However, the idea that cognitive training will result in better empathic ability is
more unique and research studies such as this provide
impetus for such research. It seems logical that cognitive development plays an important role in empathic
skill since the ability to empathize involves seeing
alternative perspectives, being "in touch" with emotional states, and thinking and responding quickly
as information is provided through both verbal and
nonverbal channels. I am not certain, however, that
a causal relationship exists between cognitive development and empathy. Consequently, I am not certain

229

Response to Lovell
that it is time to develop educational training strategies based on this assumption.
Before we begin to train counselors in cognitive
skills for the purpose of promoting empathic ability,
we must conduct more research. Qualitative research
studies and, eventually, controlled outcome studies
will help to extend the findings of this study and
help educators develop strategies to strengthen the
desired cognitive and empathic skills. Once this goal
is accomplished I would support the changes necessary in higher education to encourage cognitive development so that students can become better clinicians. I believe that this type of training would be
particularly helpful in the first few years of training.
During this time, students often fall prey to their
anxiety and begin to accept, unequivocally, what they
hear or read. Such training may deter this instinct and
prepare students to think more freely on their own.
A significant portion of my graduate school experience (especially the first 2 years) involved listening to lectures, memorizing information, and reciting it back to professors on examinations. I was quite
successful at this task and quickly learned the textbook information required of me to graduate. I did
not feel this preparation helped me, however, when
it was time to address the needs of my first patient.
In fact, one of the comments on my first-semester
clinical evaluation indicated that I had difficulty expressing empathy. This evaluation was devastating at
the time. I believe that I presented in this way because
I was anxious and unprepared to think independently, quickly, and calmly. As a consequence, rather
than allowing myself to engage with the client and
empathize with how he was feeling, I expended my
energy thinking about what I was going to say next.
In this situation, I could not rely on my knowledge
of clinical psychology and I certainly could not
"mimic" my supervisor as I had in my classes. Later in
graduate school, I was fortunate enough to establish a
solid relationship with two supervisors who encour-

aged me to think on my own, develop my analytic

skills, and apply these skills to my career. It is interesting to note that both of these individuals work primarily as researchers and not clinicians. Maybe this
is anecdotal evidence to support the idea that a cognitive-developmental approach can benefit clinical
work and improve empathic ability. Clearly, what I
learned from these supervisors in a non-clinical setting, had a tremendous impact on my confidence and
ability as a clinician. I feel comfortable experiencing
the feelings of others vicariously and expressing my
concern and empathy for them. It will be interesting
to see where this research leads and whether universities are willing to consider the suggested changes
in curriculum.
REFERENCES
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error and the future of human
life. Scientific American, 271(4), 144.
Feshbach, N. D., & Feshbach, S. (1969). The relationship between
empathy and aggression in two age groups. Developmental
Psychology, 1, 102-107.
Feshbach, N. D., & Roe, K. (1968). Empathy in six and seven year
olds. Child Development, 39, 133-145.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Hart, S. D., Forth, A. E., & Hare, R. D. (1990). Performance of
criminal psychopaths on selected neuropsychological tests.
Journal of Abnormal Development, 99, 374-379.
Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 307-316.
Moore, W. S. (1987). The Learning Environment Preferences: Establishing preliminary reliability and validity for an objective
measure of the Perry scheme of intellectual development. Dissertation Abstracts International, 8808586.
Moore, W. S. (1989). The Learning Environment Preferences;
Exploring the construct validity of an objective measure of the
Perry scheme of intellectual development. Journal of College
Student Development, 30, 504-514.
Perry, W. G. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical development
in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.
Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making
of meaning. In A. W. Chickering & Associates (Eds.), The
modern American college (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.