Psychological Reports, 2012, 110, 1, 304-314.

© Psychological Reports 2012

EMPATHY WITH FICTIONAL STORIES: RECONSIDERATION OF THE

FANTASY SCALE OF THE INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX1

KOHEI NOMURA AND SEIKI AKAI

Osaka University

Summary.—The present research compared empathy for real people with em-
pathy for fictional characters. 95 university students (53 men, 42 women) ages 18–22
years (M = 19.5, SD = 1.9) completed the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) and the
Fictional IRI. The IRI is a widely used measure of human empathy, and the Fictional
IRI contains items from the original IRI that have been modified to investigate em-
pathy for fictional characters. Empathy for characters in fictional stories was found
to correlate statistically significantly with empathy for real people on all but a few
factors. The results of the present study indicate that empathy for real people and
empathy for fictional characters are similar, suggesting that the Fantasy subscale of
the IRI, which is limited to fictional stories, should be reconsidered.

Empathy is essential to the enjoyment of fictional stories. Without em-

pathy for the characters, people would not read fiction because it does
not usually have a pragmatic purpose. If readers are not interested in the
fate of the characters, it is unlikely that a work of fiction would appeal to
them. Readers of fictional stories are known to become emotionally in-
volved with fictional events and to experience them as if they were real
(Nell, 1988; Gerrig, 1998), shedding tears while reading books or feeling as
though they were protagonists themselves while watching movies. Empa-
thy is required for such experiences, implying that people can have empa-
thy with characters and events that are not real. But is this really the case,
and if so, is the empathy that people feel toward fictional characters and
events the same as the empathy they feel toward real people and events?
Some study of empathy is required to understand how and why people
enjoy fictional stories.
Early research into empathy focused on sympathy and altruistic be-
havior. Some researchers suggested that empathy is a multidimensional
phenomenon. One of the most widely used indices of empathy is the In-
terpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), introduced by Davis (1980, 1983), who
integrated items collected from prior indices of empathy (e.g., Mehrabian
& Epstein, 1972; Stotland, Mathews, Sherman, Hansson, & Richardson,
1978) and added some new items to create a more comprehensive index of
empathy. The IRI has four subscales. The Perspective Taking scale assess-
es the ability to take the perspectives of other people and see things from
their point of view. The Fantasy scale assesses empathy with events in fic-
1
Address correspondence concerning this article to Kohei Nomura, 1-5-6 Karasugatuji Ten-
nouji-ku, Osaka-shi, Osaka-hu 543-0042, Japan or e-mail (nomur--k@m3.kcn.ne.jp).

DOI 10.2466/02.07.09.11.PR0.110.1.304-314 ISSN 0033-2941

 EMPATHY WITH FICTIONAL STORIES 305

tional stories. The Empathic Concern scale assesses the tendency to have
sympathy or consideration for other people’s negative experiences. The
Personal Distress scale assesses the tendency to feel anxiety or discomfort
when observing other people’s negative experiences.
Of these four subscales, the most controversial is the Fantasy scale.
Davis himself acknowledged some problems with this subscale. The Fan-
tasy scale measures people’s tendency to put themselves into fictional sit-
uations using their imagination. Putting oneself into another person’s sit-
uation should be a part of perspective taking. But the fact that the other
person is a character in a fictional story makes the Fantasy scale difficult
to interpret (Davis, 1994). Davis and Franzoi (1991) examined stability
and changes in the capacity for empathy during adolescence. The Fantasy
scale did not show any notable change during adolescence, although the
other three IRI scales all showed some changes. Davis and Franzoi con-
cluded that the other three IRI scales are related to ability (which changes
during adolescence), but that the Fantasy scale is not. However, they were
unable to say what the Fantasy scale might be related to. Corte, Buysse,
Verhofstadt, Roeyers, Ponnet, and Davis (2007) conceded that it is argu-
able whether the Fantasy scale is adequate as a scale for assessing “pure”
empathy.
In field surveys in which the IRI has been used, the value of the Fan-
tasy scale has been uncertain. Sometimes, the Fantasy scale has been com-
bined with the other three subscales (e.g., Becares & Turner, 2004). In such
cases, the IRI score was given as the sum of four subscales, so the meaning
of each individual subscale was ignored. In other cases, the Fantasy scale
was excluded, and only the three other subscales of the IRI were used
(e.g., Su, Lee, Ding, & Comer, 2005). The IRI subscales were not intended
to be used separately, but as a whole. However, it seems clear that the Fan-
tasy scale is not suitable in all situations.
A fundamental question relating to the validity of the Fantasy sub-
scale is whether any differences exist between empathy for real persons
and empathy for fictional characters, i.e., whether readers of fiction expe-
rience perspective taking, empathic concern, and personal distress in re-
lation to the characters in the stories in the same way as they do with real
people. If so, a scale specific to fiction may not be needed. Empathy is con-
sidered to be multidimensional in the IRI, and one of those subscales has
been considered to represent empathy for characters and named the Fan-
tasy scale. It is possible, however, that the Fantasy scale represents not em-
pathy for characters but something else. One likely proposition is that the
Fantasy scale reflects differences in respondents’ liking for fiction.
The present study had three purposes: (a) to examine connections be-
tween empathy for real persons and empathy for characters in fictional
306 K. Nomura & S. Akai

stories, (b) to examine how the Fantasy scale of the IRI correlates with
fondness for fiction and with empathy for fictional characters, and (c) to
examine how fondness for fiction correlates with empathy for real persons
and with empathy for fictional characters. It was predicted that empathy
for real people and empathy for fictional characters would be similar and
that the Fantasy scale would correlate with ratings of fondness for fiction.
No predictions were made about any correlations that might be found be-
tween fondness for fiction and empathy for real people, or between fond-
ness for fiction and empathy for fictional characters. These were examined
in a purely exploratory fashion.
Method
Participants
Ninety-five students from Osaka University (53 men, 42 women),
ages 18–22 years (M = 19.5, SD = 1.9), participated in the study. Question-
naires were distributed in an introductory psychology class for first- and
second-year students. The questionnaire took between 10 and 20 minutes
to complete, and participation was voluntary. A total of 95 questionnaires
was completed and used for the present study. Procedure had been ap-
proved by the ethics board of the university in advance.
Questionnaire
Items in the questionnaire included (a) the original IRI items, (b) the
Fictional IRI items, which contained items modified from the original IRI,
and (c) two items about fondness for fiction. The Japanese version of the
IRI was used. This version had been translated and its validity confirmed
by Sakurai (1988), Aketa (1999), and Kikuchi (1999).
The original 28-item IRI was developed by Davis (1980, 1983) with 579
men and 582 women who were introductory psychology class students at
the University of Texas at Austin (Davis, 1980), and with 677 men and 667
women who were introductory psychology class students at the Universi-
ty of Texas at Austin (Davis, 1983). IRI consists of four subscales, and each
subscale contains seven items. Each item describes a particular character-
istic of empathy and is rated on a 5-point scale with anchors 0: Does not
describe me well and 4: Describes me well. Scores for each subscale may
vary from 0 to 28 (after reverse scoring some items). High scores on the
Perspective Taking subscale indicate a higher ability to take the perspec-
tives of other people and see things from their point of view. High scores
on the Fantasy subscale mean a stronger tendency to show empathy with
events in fictional stories. High scores on the Empathic Concern scale in-
dicate a tendency to have sympathy or consideration for other people’s
negative experiences. High scores on the Personal Distress scale indicate a
tendency to feel anxiety or discomfort when observing other people’s neg-
 EMPATHY WITH FICTIONAL STORIES 307

ative experiences. Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale ranged from .70 to
.78. (Davis, 1980). University students (N = 109) took the IRI twice at inter-
vals of 60 to 75 days, and Davis (1980) reported test-retest reliability coef-
ficients from .61 to .81 for the IRI subscales.
In the Fictional IRI, the targets of the original items were changed to
fictional characters. For example, the original item “I often have tender,
concerned feelings for people less fortunate than I” was modified to read,
“I often have tender, concerned feelings for fictional characters who are
less fortunate than I.” The following four items were not appropriate for
modification and were removed: “I try to look at everybody’s side of a dis-
agreement before I make a decision,” “If I’m sure I’m right about some-
thing, I don’t waste much time listening to other people’s arguments,” “I
would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person,” and “I am usu-
ally pretty effective in dealing with emergencies.” Two psychological re-
searchers who did not participate in the present research read the Fiction-
al IRI items and confirmed that the modification related only to the targets
(real or fictional) of the empathic response and had no additional effect.
The Fictional IRI contained only the Fictional Perspective Taking, Fictional
Empathic Concern, and Fictional Personal Distress subscales; no Fictional
Fantasy subscale items were included. Two additional items, “I like fic-
tion” and “I often enjoy fiction,” were included. All items were scored on
a 5-point scale with anchors 0: Does not describe me well and 4: Describes
me very well.
Original IRI items and Fictional IRI items were presented to each par-
ticipant. The “paired” items were asked side by side, e.g., Item 1 of the
original scale and then Item 1 of the Fictional scale. Items which did not
have pairs were asked after “paired” items. Thus, the difference between
the original IRI and Fictional IRI was examined within subjects. One pur-
pose of the present research was to examine whether participants would
say they responded to real and fictional targets similarly or differently,
making a within-subject method appropriate.
Results
Distribution of scores was checked for each item. Skews for the origi-
nal IRI items ranged from –1.05 to 0.30. Kurtosis for the original IRI items
ranged from –1.19 to 0.87. Skews for the Fictional IRI ranged from –0.61
to 0.60. Kurtosis for the Fictional IRI ranged from –1.01 to –0.11. Results
of Bartlett’s test of sphericity for the original IRI and the Fictional IRI were
as follows: for the original IRI, approximately χ2 = 907.30 (df = 378, p < .001);
for the Fictional IRI, approximately χ2 = 368.67 (df = 136, p < .001). Both the
original IRI and the Fictional IRI results were checked via confirmatory
factor analysis. Models for factors affecting each corresponding item as
the IRI intended were checked using structural equation modeling. Item
308 K. Nomura & S. Akai

Table 1
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis For the Original IRI and the Fictional IRI (N = 95)
Scale Item Loading h2 Variance Accounted For
Perspective Taking IRI Fictional IRI
Q3 IRI .43 .18 32% 38%
Fictional IRI .22 .05
Q8 IRI .49 .24 Cronbach’s alpha
Fictional IRI .00 IRI Fictional IRI
Q11 IRI .57 .33 .66 .64
Fictional IRI .64 .41
Q15 IRI .49 .24
Fictional IRI .00
Q21 IRI .48 .23
Fictional IRI .59 .35
Q25 IRI .72 .51
Fictional IRI .77 .60
Q28 IRI .73 .54
Fictional IRI .71 .50
Empathic Concern
Q2 IRI .81 .65
Fictional IRI .59 .35 IRI Fictional IRI
Q4 IRI .64 .40 35.4% 35.7%
Fictional IRI .72 .52
Q9 IRI .64 .41 Cronbach’s alpha
Fictional IRI .44 .19 IRI Fictional IRI
Q14 IRI .53 .28 .70 .66
Fictional IRI .55 .30
Q18 IRI .51 .26
Fictional IRI .55 .30
Q20 IRI .44 .20
Fictional IRI .69 .48
Q22 IRI .52 .27
Fictional IRI .00
Personal Distress
Q6 IRI .63 .40
Fictional IRI .67 .45 IRI Fictional IRI
Q10 IRI .47 .22 28.1% 32.9%
Fictional IRI .41 .17
Q13 IRI .56 .32 Cronbach’s alpha
Fictional IRI .56 .32 IRI Fictional IRI
Q17 IRI .60 .36 .60 .62
Fictional IRI .64 .41
Q19 IRI .48 .23
Fictional IRI .00
Q24 IRI .51 .26
Fictional IRI .61 .37
Q27 IRI .43 .18
Fictional IRI .51 .26
(continued on next page)
Note.—Reverse-scored items’ ratings were inverted. The Fictional IRI does not contain Q8, Q15,
Q22, Q19, and Fictional Fantasy subscale. For the original IRI, GFI was 0.97, AGFI was 0.96; for
the Fictional IRI, GFI was 0.99, AGFI was 0.98 (unweighted least squares method).
 EMPATHY WITH FICTIONAL STORIES 309

Table 1 (cont’d)
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis For the Original IRI and the Fictional IRI (N = 95)
Scale Item Loading h2 Variance Accounted For
Fantasy
Q1 IRI .46 .21
Fictional IRI .00 IRI Fictional IRI
Q5 IRI .65 .43 36.7% 0.0%
Fictional IRI .00
Q7 IRI .54 .29 Cronbach’s alpha
Fictional IRI .00 IRI
Q12 IRI .61 .37 .73
Fictional IRI .00
Q16 IRI .68 .47
Fictional IRI .00
Q23 IRI .64 .41
Fictional IRI .00
Q26 IRI .63 .39
Fictional IRI .00
Note.—Reverse-scored items’ ratings were inverted. The Fictional IRI does not contain Q8, Q15,
Q22, Q19, and Fictional Fantasy subscale. For the original IRI, GFI was 0.97, AGFI was 0.96; for
the Fictional IRI, GFI was 0.99, AGFI was 0.98 (unweighted least squares method).

loadings, communalities, variance accounted for, GFI, AGFI, and Cron-

bach’s alphas are shown in Table 1.
Intercorrelations Among IRI and Fictional IRI Subscales
Table 2 shows the intercorrelations among the subscales of the origi-

Table 2
Intercorrelations of the Original IRI (Davis, 1983;
N = 1,230) and Current Research (N = 95) Are Compared
Scale M SD Pearson r
2 3 4
Davis (1983)
1. Perspective Taking .33* −.25* .13*
2. Empathic Concern .08 .33*
3. Personal Distress .07
4. Fantasy
Current Study
1. Perspective Taking 16.31 4.52 .25* −.01 −.01
95%CI .05, .43 −.21, .19 −.22, .19
2. Empathic Concern 18.05 4.36 .32† .20
95%CI .12, .49 .00, .38
3. Personal Distress 16.74 4.17 .33†
95%CI .14, .50
4. Fantasy 17.07 4.97
*p < .05. †p < .01.
310 K. Nomura & S. Akai

Table 3
Intercorrelations of Fictional IRI (N = 95) Subscales
Scale M SD Pearson r
2 3
1. Perspective Taking 10.39 3.44 .00 .28*
95%CI −.20, .20 .09, .46
2. Empathic Concern 14.55 4.00 .50*
95%CI .33, .64
3. Personal Distress 9.26 3.67
Note.—Fictional IRI does not include Fictional FS scale. Fictional Perspective Taking consists
of five items; Fictional Empathic Concern consists of six items; Fictional Personal Distress
consists of six items. *p < .01.

nal IRI in the present research compared with results of Davis’s (1983) re-
search. Correlations between the Perspective Taking and Empathic Con-
cern scales and between the Fantasy and Personal Distress scales were
similar to those reported by Davis (1983). However, the Empathic Con-
cern and Personal Distress scales were statistically significantly correlat-
ed in the present study, whereas they were not in Davis’s (1983) research
(r = .08). In Davis (1983), the Fantasy and Empathic Concern scales were
significantly correlated (r = .33), and the Perspective Taking and Personal
Distress scales were negatively correlated (r = −.25). This pattern was not
seen in the present study.
Table 3 shows intercorrelations among the subscales of the Fictional
IRI. There were statistically significant correlations between the Fiction-
al Perspective Taking scale and the Fictional Personal Distress scale, and
between the Fictional Empathic Concern scale and the Fictional Personal
Distress scale.
Table 4 shows intercorrelations between the original IRI and the Fic-
tional IRI in the present research. Statistically significant correlations were
found for all three corresponding pairs: original Perspective Taking and

Table 4
Intercorrelations Between Fictional IRI and Original IRI (N = 95)
Fictional IRI Subscale IRI Subscale
Perspective Empathic Personal Fantasy
Taking Concern Distress
Perspective Taking .47* −.08 −.01 .03
95%CI .29, .61 −.27, .13 −.21, .19 −.17, .13
Empathic Concern .04 .48* .38* .46*
95%CI −.16, .24 .30, .62 .19, .54 .28, .60
Personal Distress .02 .28* .37* .15
95%CI −.18, .22 .09, .46 .18, .53 −.05, .34
*p < .01.
 EMPATHY WITH FICTIONAL STORIES 311

Table 5
Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Fondness For Fiction
From Subscales of the Original IRI and Fictional IRI
Variable B SE(B) β t p R2
IRI
Perspective Taking 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.31 ns .00
Empathic Concern 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.77 ns .01
Personal Distress 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.94 ns .01
Fantasy 0.12 0.05 0.27 2.65  < .01 .07
Fictional IRI
Perspective Taking −0.01 0.07 −0.01 −0.11 ns .00
Empathic Concern 0.11 0.06 0.20 1.85 ns .04
Personal Distress −0.02 0.07 −0.03 −0.25 ns .00

Fictional Perspective Taking, original Empathic Concern and Fictional

Empathic Concern, and original Personal Distress and Fictional Personal
Distress. Empathic Concern for real people and Personal Distress for fic-
tional characters were statistically significantly correlated, as were Person-
al Distress for real people and Empathic Concern for fictional characters.
Fantasy in the original IRI and Fictional Empathic Concern were also cor-
related statistically significantly.
Correlations Among Fondness For Fiction and Other Factors
The sum of the answers for two items about fondness for fiction was
statistically significantly correlated with the Fantasy scale of the original
IRI (r = .27, p > .01). To confirm the hypothesis that the Fantasy scale indi-
cates fondness for fiction, regression analysis predicting fondness for fic-
tion from all seven subscales was conducted. The results are shown in Ta-
ble 5. Only the Fantasy scale was statistically significant.
Discussion
The present study compared the original IRI, which deals with real
people, and the Fictional IRI, which deals with fictional characters. The
results showed that all three corresponding factors, Perspective Taking,
Empathic Concern, and Personal Distress, function in the same way in
the original and Fictional IRI. If the Fantasy scale simply evaluated em-
pathy with fictional characters, it would be measuring something that
equates with measures of Fictional Perspective Taking, Fictional Empath-
ic Concern, and Fictional Personal Distress. If that were true, the fantasy
scale would have shown more correlations with the other three subscales.
When Davis (1980, 1983) developed the IRI, the Fantasy scale showed in-
dependent dimensions, perhaps indicating that something other than em-
pathy with fictional characters was being measured.
There was a correlation, although not a strong one, between ques-
tions about fondness for fiction and the Fantasy scale (r = .27). Therefore,
312 K. Nomura & S. Akai

the hypothesis that the Fantasy scale does not indicate empathy with fic-
tion but rather indicates fondness for fiction was not sufficiently support-
ed. It must be noted that only the Fantasy scale was correlated with fond-
ness for fiction, significant in regression analysis predicting fondness for
fiction, and other original and Fictional subscales were not, indicating that
the uniqueness of the Fantasy scale relates to this area.
Readers of fiction surely comprehend the emotions of characters in
the stories (Gernsbacher, Goldsmith, & Robertson, 1992) and changes in
their emotions as the stories progress (de Vega, Leon, & Diaz, 1996). If a
reader of a fictional story literally does not have any empathy, she or he
may not even understand the story; it is difficult to imagine a reader who
has low empathy yet a high fondness of fiction. The fact that fondness
for fiction was not correlated with any subscales except the Fantasy scale
must not be interpreted as indicating that fiction cannot be enjoyed with-
out empathy. Rather, it may suggest that a person who has a high score on
the original IRI (except the Fantasy scale) or even on the Fictional IRI does
not necessarily enjoy reading fiction.
It is interesting that there was a positive correlation between Fictional
Perspective Taking and Fictional Personal Distress. This result contrasts
with the results of the original IRI in the present study, in which Perspec-
tive Taking and Personal Distress were not correlated. In Davis’s research
(1983), the Perspective Taking and Personal Distress scales showed weak
negative correlation (r = −.25). This suggests a remarkable difference be-
tween empathy for real people and empathy for fictional characters. When
observing a real person’s distress, higher Perspective Taking was associ-
ated with more objective observation (feeling the distress, but not as if the
observer is the sufferer himself) and low Personal Distress (feeling the
distress as if the observer were the sufferer himself), and in turn, low Per-
spective Taking was associated with high Personal Distress. In contrast,
when watching fictional characters’ distress, objective observation as Per-
spective Taking and subjective observation as Personal Distress can both
be high. The mechanism for how both subjective and objective observa-
tion work together during enjoyment of fiction requires further research.
The present research has shown that the Fictional IRI is correlated
with the original IRI. Although the fictional world is understood not to re-
ally exist, empathy with fictional characters is similar in function to em-
pathy with people in the real world. This knowledge has important impli-
cations for research into reading or art appreciation. The present research
used the Fictional IRI experimentally, but the results indicated that the
original IRI can equally be used as a measure of empathy with fictional
characters. In this regard, however, the Perspective Taking scale, the Em-
pathic Concern scale, and the Personal Distress scale should be used to
 EMPATHY WITH FICTIONAL STORIES 313

measure empathy for fictional characters, and the Fantasy scale should be
used to measure fondness for fictional stories themselves. For example, in
promoting literacy, the IRI scores could be used to understand the reading
tendencies and challenges of certain students.
The present research has some limitations. The Cronbach’s alpha val-
ues were rather low, with a minimum reliability limit of .60 (Robinson,
Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991); a reliability of .70 or more is desirable (Hair,
Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Because the original IRI was
presented alongside the Fictional IRI in the present study, it is possible
that participants were motivated to answer differently for “paired” items.
Their natural answers might be biased, and this might explain the discrep-
ancy between current results and those of Davis (1983). The correlations
found in the present research were not high. The factors at play here may
not be explained by empathy alone. Further research is required to inves-
tigate the effect of empathy and other factors on reading behavior. Fur-
thermore, the possibility of some linkage between different scores on the
IRI and preferences for different kinds of fiction (romance, horror, adven-
ture, etc.) also remains as a topic for further research.
References
Aketa, Y. (1999) On a framework for and measures of empathy: an organizational
model of empathy by Davis, and a preliminary study of a multidimensional em-
pathy scale (IRI–J). Psychological Reports of Sophia University, 23, 19-31.
Becares, L., & Turner, C. (2004) Sex, college major, and attribution of responsibility
in empathic responding to persons with HIV infection. Psychological Reports, 95,
467-476.
Corte, D., Buysse, A., Verhofstadt, L., Roeyers, H., Ponnet, K., & Davis, M.
(2007) Measuring empathic tendencies: reliability and validity of the Dutch ver-
sion of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Psychologica Belgica, 47(4), 235-260.
Davis, M. H. (1980) A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empa-
thy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Davis, M. H. (1983) Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a mul-
tidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.
Davis, M. H. (1994) Empathy: a social psychological approach. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press. (Trans. by A. Kikuchi, 1999, Tokyo)
Davis, M. H., & Franzoi, S. (1991) Stability and change in adolescent self-conscious-
ness and empathy, Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 70-87.
de Vega, M., Leon, I., & Diaz, J. M. (1996) The representation of changing emotions in
reading comprehension. Cognition & Emotion, 10, 303-321.
Gernsbacher, M. A., Goldsmith, H. H., & Robertson, R. R. W. (1992) Do readers
mentally represent characters’ emotional states? Cognition and Emotion, 6, 89-111.
Gerrig, R. J. (1998) Experiencing narrative worlds. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006) Multi-
variate data analysis. (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972) A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Per-
sonality, 40, 525-543.
314 K. Nomura & S. Akai

Nell, V. (1988) Lost in a book. New Haven, CT: Yale Univer. Press.

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.) (1991) Measures of personality
and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sakurai, S. (1988) The relationship between empathy and helping behavior in college
students. Bulletin of Nara University of Education (Cultural and Social Science), 37,
149-154.
Stotland, E., Mathews, K., Sherman, S., Hansson, R., & Richardson, B. (1978) Empa-
thy, fantasy, and helping. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Su, H-J., Lee, S., Ding, J., & Comer, L. (2005) Relations among measures of trait em-
pathy, empathetic response, and willingness to get involved in customer-contact
situations. Psychological Reports, 97, 378-380.

Accepted December 20, 2011.