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.
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.
Schizophr Res. 2019 Jun;208:153-159. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2019.03.024. Epub 2019 Apr 19.
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.
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.
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.
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.
共情是精神分裂症患者受损的人际过程。过去的研究主要使用问卷或基于表现的任务以及静态提示来衡量认知和情感共情。我们使用了共情准确性任务(EAT),该任务通过使用感知者不断判断情感故事的视频片段来捕捉共情的动态方面。我们比较了精神分裂症患者和健康对照组,并评估了 EAT 与其他三种常用共情测量工具之间的相关性。
患者(n=92)和健康对照组(n=42)按年龄、性别和教育程度匹配,完成了 EAT、人际反应指数、认知和情感共情问卷和失态。分析了组间差异,并计算了共情测量工具之间的相关性。
两组在 EAT 表现上存在差异,对照组的表现优于患者。发现目标情感表达存在调节作用:当判断低表达目标时,患者和对照组的得分都较低,但当目标表达更强烈时,对照组的表现优于患者。尽管在共情问卷上也存在组间差异,但 EAT 表现与问卷分数无关。
与对照组相比,精神分裂症患者从他人的情感表达中获益较少,这导致他们的共情准确性受损。EAT 与问卷之间缺乏相关性表明自我报告的共情和实际的共情表现之间存在区别。为了探索现实生活中的共情困难,使用考虑人际视角的工具非常重要。