See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284547284

SELF-REPORT OF EMPATHY: A SHORTENED FRENCH

ADAPTATION OF THE INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY
INDEX (IRI) USING TWO LAR....

Article  in  Psychological Reports · November 2015

DOI: 10.2466/08.02.PR0.117c23z6

CITATIONS READS

16 1,116

5 authors, including:

Stéphanie Braun Gwenole Loas

Université Libre de Bruxelles Université Libre de Bruxelles
19 PUBLICATIONS   376 CITATIONS    229 PUBLICATIONS   3,125 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Paul Linkowski
Université Libre de Bruxelles
51 PUBLICATIONS   1,683 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Network Analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stéphanie Braun on 17 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ORIGINALITY | CREATIVITY | UNDERSTANDING

Please Do Not Post This Article on the Web!*

To maintain the integrity of peer-reviewed and editorially approved

publications in Psychological Reports
copyright to this article and all accompanying intellectual property rights.
Ammons

institution, as well as personal educational development and sharing of

the article with the author’s close colleagues. Any other use, including, but
not limited to, reproduction and distribution through paper or electronic
copies, posting on any websites, or selling or licensing additional copies
is prohibited. This article cannot be used for any commercial purpose
whatsoever. Terms of use

posters about the terms of use.

http://www.AmSci.com
 ISSN 0033-2941
December 2015

Volume 117, No. 3 / December 2015

www.amsci.com

00PR December 15 cover.indd 1 01/12/15 10:02 AM


PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS
Psychological Reports is published bimonthly, two volumes a year, the first
with issues in February, April, and June, and the second with issues in August,
October, and December, from P.O. Box 9229, Missoula, Montana 59807-9229. Sub-
scriptions are accepted only for full calendar years. For subscription information,
please visit www.AmSci.com and click on “Subscribers.”
The purpose of this journal is to encourage scientific originality and cre-
ativity in the study of experimental, theoretical, and social psychology includ-
ing: mental health; rehabilitation; intelligence and creativity; development and
ageing; motivation; burnout; substance abuse; coping; communication; suicide
and criminal behavior; organizational and consumer behavior; sports psychol-
ogy; personality; fitness and health behavior. New or translated psychometric
instruments may be described. Comments and special reviews are occasionally
accepted. Controversial material of scientific merit is welcomed. Submitted man-
uscripts are all subject to rigorous peer review by outside experts chosen for their
knowledge in the particular topic and/or general expertise in design, method,
and analysis. In addition, associate editors who have broad knowledge of vari-
ous topic areas are asked to review particularly difficult, unique, or controversial
manuscripts. All manuscripts have at least 3 and up to 20 peer reviewers. Critical
editing is combined with specific suggestions from multiple referees of each pa-
per to help authors meet standards. For instructions for submitting a manuscript,
please visit our web site (www.AmSci.com) and click on “Authors.”
If a manuscript is accepted for publication, there are three possible formats
for publication.
Regular articles. These are articles which require three or more printed pages.
One- or two-page “brief articles.” This arrangement is useful if a particular
finding can be reported completely in this format and will be immediately useful
to other researchers in the field. Charge is $35.00 per printed page plus composi-
tor fees for tables, figures, or equations. Authors may submit supplemental mate-
rial for filing with the Archive for Psychological Data.
Monograph supplements. Certain papers printing to more than 50 pages are
published as monograph supplements. These are distributed to subscribers as
parts of regular issues and are also made available as separates.
Publication is in order of receipt of proof from the authors. Author fees are
$35.00 per page, plus costs of special composition, e.g., tables, figures, and math-
ematics. Fees are paid by authors or their institutions.
This journal is supported by a fully searchable electronic database at www.
AmSciePub.com. All articles and reference metadata are submitted to CrossRef
for linking to other publishers and databases, so that the materials are accessi-
ble to online literature search. It is also the policy of this journal to file raw data
with the Archive for Psychological Data. Authors should submit appropriate ta-
bles with their articles.
Responsibility for address change rests with the subscriber. Claims for missing issues must
be made within two months of publication.
00PR December 15 cover.indd 2
SECTION 1: DISABILITY & TRAUMA
Self-reports of Illegal Activity, SCL-90–R Personality Scales, and Urine Tests in Methadone Patients:
ZACK CERNOVSKY, GAMAL SADEK, AND SIMON CHIU .......................................................................... 643
Compulsive Buying Tendencies: MARCELLO SPINELLA, DAVID LESTER, AND BIJOU YANG .............................. 649
Sources of Stress and Recovery as Concurrent Predictors of the Affect Balance of Patients with Fibromy-
algia: JOSÉ LUIS GONZÁLEZ, ALMUDENA LÓPEZ-LÓPEZ, MIRIAM ALONSO-FERNÁNDEZ, BORJA MATÍAS-
POMPA, NOELIA CIUDAD, AND JOSUÉ FERNÁNDEZ CARNERO ................................................................ 656
SECTION 2: EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGY & MARKETING
Motivation Internalization and Simplex Structure in Self-determination Theory: ALI ÜNLÜ AND ULRICH
DETTWEILER ......................................................................................................................................... 675
Effects of Message Framing and Exemplars on Promoting Organ Donation: YU-HUNG CHIEN AND WEN-TE
CHANG ................................................................................................................................................. 692
The Relationship Between Mental Toughness, Stress, and Burnout Among Adolescents: A Longitudinal
Study with Swiss Vocational Students: MARKUS GERBER, ANNE KARINA FELDMETH, CHRISTIN LANG,
SERGE BRAND, CATHERINE ELLIOT, EDITH HOLSBOER-TRACHSLER, AND UWE PÜHSE ............................ 703
Supervisors’ Transformational Leadership and Bullying in the Workplace: MARC DUSSAULT AND ÉRIC
FRENETTE ............................................................................................................................................. 724
SECTION 3: MEASURES & STATISTICS
Self-report of Empathy: A Shortened French Adaptation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) Using
Two Large Belgian Samples: STÉPHANIE BRAUN, YVES ROSSEEL, CHANTAL KEMPENAERS, GWENOLE
LOAS, AND PAUL LINKOWSKI ................................................................................................................ 735
Determination of the Cutoff Threshold on the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire–20 Form B: A
Study of 560 Young Adults: GWENOLÉ LOAS, STÉPHANIE BRAUN, PAUL LINKOWSKI, AND OLIVIER
LUMINET .............................................................................................................................................. 754
Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties of the Index of Teaching Stress–Short Form (ITS–SF): MARIA
CLELIA ZURLO, DANIELA PES, AND ROSARIA ROMANO ........................................................................ 763
Psychometric Properties of the Obsessive–Compulsive Inventory–Revised in a Turkish Analogue Sample:
ORCUN YORULMAZ, MUJGAN INOZU, DAVID A. CLARK, AND ADAM S. RADOMSKY ............................. 781
Sex Differences on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–III in Bahrain and the United States: SALA-
HELDIN FARAH ATTALLAH BAKHIET AND RICHARD LYNN ..................................................................... 794
Personality Assessment Inventory: Psychometric Analyses of Its Argentinean Version: JULIANA B. STOVER,
ALEJANDRO CASTRO SOLANO, AND MERCEDES FERNÁNDEZ LIPORACE .................................................. 799
SECTION 4: MENTAL & PHYSICAL HEALTH
Specific Effects of Anger Rumination on Particular Executive Functions: XINFANG DING, YIN YANG,
MINGYI QIAN, AND ARLENE GORDON-HOLLINGSWORTH ...................................................................... 825
Three Studies of the Standard Progressive Matrices in Morocco: SALAHELDIN FARAH ATTALLAH BAKHIET
AND RICHARD LYNN ............................................................................................................................. 842
Humor Styles, Creative Personality Traits, and Creative Thinking in a Hong Kong Sample: XIAO DONG
YUE AND ANNA NA HUI ..................................................................................................................... 845
The Effects of Expressive Writing on Postpartum Depression and Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms: PAOLA
DI BLASIO, ELENA CAMISASCA, SIMONA CARLA SILVIA CARAVITA, CHIARA IONIO, LUCA MILANI, AND
GIOVANNI GIULIO VALTOLINA .............................................................................................................. 856
SECTION 5: RELATIONSHIPS & COMMUNICATIONS
The Influence of Social Support on Psychological Distress in Older Persons: An Examination of Inter-
action Processes in Australia: CHRISTOPHER SHARPLEY, RAFAT HUSSAIN, STUART WARK, MARK
MCEVOY, AND JOHN ATTIA ................................................................................................................. 883
Influence of Parent–Adolescent Conflict Frequency on Adolescent Family Satisfaction and Self-satisfaction
in China: Conflict Coping Tactics as Moderators: HONGYU ZHAO, YAN XU, FANG WANG, JIANG
JIANG, AND XIAOHUI ZHANG .................................................................................................... 897
SECTION 6: SOCIOCULTURAL ISSUES IN PSYCHOLOGY
The Effect of Self-set Grade Goals and Core Self-evaluations on Academic Performance: A Diary Study:
TANJA BIPP, AD KLEINGELD, MARIEKE VAN DEN TOOREN, AND SONJA SCHINKEL .......................... 917
Satisfaction with Life Among Young Adults in Four Arab Countries: AHMED M. ABDEL-KHALEK AND
MAYSSAH A. EL NAYAL ........................................................................................................................ 931
Interest in Astrology and Phrenology Over Two Centuries: A Google Ngram Study: JEREMY E. C.
GENOVESE ............................................................................................................................................ 940
Suicide on Death Row: CHRISTINE TARTARO AND DAVID LESTER .................................................................... 944
01/12/15 10:02 AM
 Psychological Reports: Measures & Statistics
2015, 117, 3, 735-753. © Psychological Reports 2015

SELF-REPORT OF EMPATHY: A SHORTENED FRENCH ADAPTATION

OF THE INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX (IRI) USING TWO
LARGE BELGIAN SAMPLES1, 2, 3

STÉPHANIE BRAUN

Department of Psychiatry, Erasmus Hospital, Free University of Brussels, Belgium

YVES ROSSEEL

Department of Data Analysis, Ghent University, Belgium

CHANTAL KEMPENAERS, GWENOLE LOAS, AND PAUL LINKOWSKI

Department of Psychiatry, Erasmus Hospital, Free University of Brussels, Belgium

Summary.—For more than 30 years, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) has
been used to measure the multidimensional aspects of empathy. But the 28-item,
4-factor model of Davis (1980) is currently contested because of methodological is-
sues and for theoretical reasons. Confirmatory (CFA) and exploratory factor analy-
ses (EFA) were applied in two French-speaking Belgian student samples (1,244 par-
ticipants in the first and 729 in the second study) to test this model and to propose a
shortened version. A non-optimal fit was found with respect to the CFI value (Study
1). By splitting the student group into two random subsamples, EFA and then CFA
were used to propose a 15-item, 4-factor model with good fit indices. A CFA on the
second student group (Study 2) replicated this model. Results are discussed consid-
ering the influence of social desirability response bias, an absence of strong invari-
ance across sex and the usefulness of self-report scales to measure empathy.

The construct of empathy is of great interest for psychologists, psychi-

atrists, and other mental health professionals, especially because it is one
of the basic tools and indicators of a good outcome in psychotherapy. For
instance, empathy is an essential key to creating a therapeutic relationship
(Decety, 2002). Although this concept remains difficult to define because
of its complexity, one can consider “empathy” as the ability to put one-
self into another's shoes to feel his emotions and feelings. For many years,
the concept of empathy has been operationalized in various ways (e.g.,
Dymond, 1949, 1950; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972), but today researchers

1
Address correspondence to Stéphanie Braun, Service de Psychiatrie, Hôpital Erasme, Univer-
sité Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 808 Route de Lennik, 1070 Bruxelles, Belgium or e-mail (sbraun@
ulb.ac.be).
2
Supported by the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (Grants 1.5.123.04, 1.5.175.06,
and 3.4.553.01.F).
3
We want to acknowledge the helpful contribution to this work of N. Clumeck, G. Davin, P.
DeCocq, C. Delanaye, D. Detroux, D. Dieu, B. Jacques, F. Jurysta, O. Luminet, L. Mendlewicz,
and M. Schwannauer.

DOI 10.2466/08.02.PR0.117c23z6 ISSN 0033-2941

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 735 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 736 S. BRAUN, ET AL.

generally agree on its multidimensional structure (e.g., Davis, 1983, 1994).

More precisely, a two-component model integrating both an affective and
a cognitive dimension is frequently accepted (e.g. Davis, 1980; Duan &
Hill, 1996; Bohart & Greenberg, 1997; Feschbach, 1997; Decety & Jackson,
2004; Reniers, Corcoran, Drake, Shryane, & Völlm, 2011).
Davis (1980) presented a model based on these two main dimensions.
The cognitive dimension includes, for example, the ability to adopt an-
other person's perspective or point of view and affect; e.g., the percep-
tion of our own feelings when faced with the emotions of other people.
Both are considered to belong to an interdependent system in which each
component interacts with the other. Davis (1980) constructed a self-report
scale (Interpersonal Reactivity Index; IRI) to measure empathy according
to this model. In the Index, four factors have been extracted from these
two broad dimensions: (1) fantasy, which is defined as a tendency to iden-
tify strongly with fictitious characters in books, movies, etc. (e.g., “I really
get involved with the feelings of the characters in a novel”); (2) perspec-
tive-taking, which reflects the tendency to adopt the perspective or point
of view of other people (e.g., “Before criticizing somebody, I try to imag-
ine how I would feel if I were in his place”); (3) empathic concern, which
evaluates the ability to experience feelings of warmth or compassion for
others when they face negative experiences (“I often have tender, con-
cerned feelings for people less fortunate than me”); and (4) personal dis-
tress, which corresponds to the unpleasant feelings of discomfort and anx-
iety that people feel when they witness the negative experiences of others
(e.g., “Being in a tense emotional situation scares me”). No total score is
calculated because each factor measures a specific aspect of empathy. Be-
ginning 40 years ago, several self-report questionnaires have been created
to assess either a cognitive (Hogan, 1969) or an affective (Mehrabian & Ep-
stein, 1972; Mehrabian, 1996) dimension of empathy. However, because it
considers these two aspects of the empathic process together, the IRI scale
has become one of the most widely used scales.
There are obviously several limitations to measure empathy with self-
report scales; for example, subjectivity in responses to questions or the in-
fluence of social desirability (e.g. Watson & Morris, 1991; Preti & Miotto,
2011). Moreover, self-report scales do not consider new theoretical models
based on neuroimaging techniques and the study of pathologies associ-
ated with a lack of empathic response, as in autism or psychopathy (Blair,
2005). For example, Decety (Decety & Jackson, 2004; Decety, 2011) pro-
posed a model including three major components that interact dynami-
cally: (1) an affective sharing between oneself and another person, (2) a
cognitive ability to understand others’ emotions (that supposes self-other
awareness), and (3) the mental flexibility to regulate one's own emotions.

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 736 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 FRENCH VERSION OF THE INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX 737

There are other models such as Blair's (2005), that suggest a distinction be-
tween three components: (1) emotional, (2) motor (based on mirror neu-
rons studies), and (3) cognitive empathy (mentalizing, referred to as the
Theory of Mind). These models are quite different from each other but
have the same essential qualities. In particular, the models imply task per-
formances (or objective skills) and make the combination of multiple func-
tional processes coherent despite different methodological approaches.
The models also point out the difference between empathy and sympathy,
a fine detail that the personal distress scale of the IRI does not take into ac-
count (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006).
Although it seems that no meaningful relationship between empathy
disposition evaluated by self-report questionnaires as the IRI and neural
processes has been found (Decety, 2011), self-report scales are commonly
used in practice. Some replicable results such as the effect of sex are fre-
quently observed. Indeed, women appear to score higher than men in a
fairly stable way. But it is difficult to interpret this result as a true differ-
ence in the empathic process because of the hypothesized presence of ste-
reotypes and cultural expectations about sex roles (Christov-Moore, Simp-
son, Coudé, Grigaityte, Iacoboni, & Ferrari, 2014).
The psychometric qualities of the IRI have been explored for many
years and have given quite different results. The four-factor structure has
been replicated in several studies (e.g. Carey, Fox, & Spraggins, 1988; Lit-
vack-Miller, McDougall, & Romney, 1997; Lennon, Pulos, & Elison, 2004;
Hawk, Keijsers, Branje, Van der Graaff, De Wied, & Meeus, 2012) but not
in others. For example, the results of Atkins and Steitz (1999) indicated six
factors, but they found two items that loaded on factors other than their
presumed factors. Cliffordson (2002), using confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA), proposed a hierarchical model of empathy because the four-factor
model did not provide an optimal fit. She suggested that empathic con-
cern was the essential element of empathy and that the “personal distress”
dimension seemed less central to the construct. Moreover, Alterman, Mc-
Dermott, Cacciola, and Rutherford (2003) found a three-factor, 18-item
structure of the IRI with methadone maintenance patients and proposed
an “empathy factor” combining nine items from the “perspective taking”
and “empathic concern” subscales. The “fantasy” and “personal distress”
scales were found, but substantially modified. In this study, Alterman,
et al. (2003) mentioned some methodological arguments to question the
four-factor, 28-item structure obtained by Davis. They stated the fact that
Davis (1980) reported some item loadings on the four factors that were
lower than the typical threshold of .40, that the conclusions of Carey, et
al. (1988) cannot be considered as definitive for methodological reasons,
that the Personal distress subscale does not necessarily belong to the em-

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 737 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 738 S. BRAUN, ET AL.

pathy domain (Wise & Cramer, 1988), and that Litvack-Miller, et al. (1997)
supported the four-factor structure but with only 14 items loading sa-
liently (≥ 0.40) on the four factors. More recently, Carrasco Ortiz, Delgado
Egido, Barbero García, Holgado Tello, and del Barrio Gándara (2011) ob-
tained in a sample of Spanish children and adolescents a structure with
five first-order main factors (Intellectual empathy, Positive empathy, Dis-
organized emotional empathy, Virtual empathy, and Impassiveness) and
a second-order dimension with the two first factors called “Considerate
Social Style.” In conclusion, although the four-factor structure has some-
times been replicated over the last 30 years, it seems that the IRI structure
shows some inconsistencies. These inconsistencies may be explained by
methodological aspects (construct definition, statistical analyses, sample
differences, etc.).
The IRI has been adapted in other languages, including Spanish (Pérez-
Albéniz, de Paul, Etxeberria, Paz Montes, & Torres, 2003), German (En-
zmann, 1996; Lauterbach & Hosser, 2007), Dutch (de Corte, Buysse, Verhof-
stadt, Roeyers, Ponnet, & Davis, 2007), Chinese (Siu & Shek, 2005), Swedish
(Kulich & Bengtsson, 2002), Korean (Kang, Kee, Kim, Jeong, Hwang, Song,
et al., 2009), and French (Gilet, Mella, Studer, Grühn, & Labouvie-Vief,
2013). Although the Spanish version had good psychometric qualities as in
the English version for one sample (Pérez-Albéniz, et al., 2003), it did not
in a second sample (Mestre, Frías, & Samper, 2004). Moreover, confirma-
tory factor analysis in the Chinese population suggested a stable three-fac-
tor structure where the cognitive and emotional aspects of empathy were
combined to form a new factor. The French version proposed by Gilet, et al.
(2013) indicated acceptable test-retest reliability along with acceptable con-
vergent and discriminate validity. Nevertheless, the authors noted a non-
optimal fit using CFA, especially for CFI, and suggested that future inves-
tigations should be useful.
Research goal.—To explore the psychometric aspects of the French
IRI in a large French-speaking adult sample. Because this
study was begun before the French adaptation of Gilet, et al.
(2013), the results will be based on a unique French translation.
A comparison between these two versions showed minor dif-
ferences that did not distort the items’ meaning.

STUDY 1
Method
Participants.—The participants were 1,397 first-year students (598 men,
799 women) who completed several questionnaires including the current
French version of the IRI. Because some students did not complete the en-

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 738 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 FRENCH VERSION OF THE INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX 739

tire scale, perhaps because of lack of motivation due to the duration of the
study, and the many scales to complete, it was decided to exclude those
who had left any items unanswered. The final group was therefore reduced
to 1,244 participants (534 men, 710 women) attending several Belgian uni-
versities or high schools where all courses are given in French (engineer-
ing: 35.1%; medicine: 17.8%; nursing school: 16.5%; economic sciences:
16.3%; psychology: 12.5%; and law: 1.8%). Their ages ranged from 17 to 25
years (M = 19.6, SD = 1.6).
Measure.—Each participant completed a version of the IRI translated in
French by a Belgian psychologist and a Belgian psychiatrist (respectively,
LM and CD). A native English speaker who was also fluent in French as a
second language did a back-translation of the French IRI before the data
collection. When there was a mismatch between the two versions, some
linguistic corrections were made in French, to be as close as possible to the
meaning of the original version. This scale is a 28-item self-report inven-
tory. Each item is rated on a 5-point scale with anchors 0: Does not describe
me well and 4: Describes me very well. Negatively keyed items were re-
versed for scoring. The French items are provided in Table 1.
Other questionnaires were employed to evaluate several emotional
traits such as emotional intelligence, alexithymia, etc., or some control
measures such as mood or social desirability (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).
These results will be not reported here. Some demographic information
(such as civil status, native language, medical data, academic courses, etc.)
was collected in the last part of the session.
Procedure.—The assessment was approximately one hour long and
took place during a scheduled class time. The students were informed that
the study received the approval from the Ethical Committee of the Eras-
mus Hospital. They were also informed that their participation was vol-
untary and anonymous, and that a feedback could be transmitted later by
contacting the authors of the study. They responded to the questionnaires
on answer sheets in a semi-random order to avoid any bias linked to the
presentation sequence. No remuneration was given for their participation.
All students who had insufficient fluency in French were excluded, and
thus the participants of the final group were all native French speakers
or had spoken French since childhood, as indicated on the demographic
questionnaire.
Analysis.—After exploring possible differences between the excluded
subjects (n = 153) and the final sample (n = 1,244), some descriptive analy-
ses were performed with SPSS (Versions 13.0 to 22.0; means, standard de-
viations, minimums, and maximums). A sex comparison between scores
obtained at each subscale was made as in Davis (1980). Pearson corre-
lations between each subscale of the IRI and the Crowne-Marlowe scale

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 739 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 740 S. BRAUN, ET AL.

TABLE 1
ITEM COMPOSITION OF THE IRI: FRENCH VERSION (2015)
Factor No. Item
Fantasy scale 1 Je me surprends assez souvent à rêver et à fantasmer sur des
choses qui pourraient m’arriver.
Empathic concern 2 Je suis souvent sensible et apitoyé(e) face à des gens moins
chanceux que moi.
Perspective taking 3 J’ai parfois des difficultés à voir les choses du point de vue de
l’autre. (R)
Empathic concern 4 Parfois, je n’éprouve pas beaucoup de pitié quand d’autres
gens ont des problèmes. (R)
Fantasy scale 5 Je me laisse complètement prendre par les sentiments des per-
sonnages d’un roman.
Personal distress 6 Face à des situations critiques, je me sens inquiet(e) et mal à
l’aise.
Fantasy scale 7 Habituellement, je suis objectif (ve) quand je regarde un film
ou une pièce et je suis rarement tout à fait emballé(e). (R)
Perspective taking 8 En cas de désaccord, j’essaie de tenir compte du point de vue
de chacun avant de prendre une décision.
Empathic concern 9 Quand je vois quelqu’un se faire avoir, j’ai une certaine envie
de le protéger.
Personal distress 10 Quand je me retrouve dans une situation très émotionnelle, je
me sens parfois désarmé(e).
Perspective taking 11 J’essaie parfois de mieux comprendre mes amis en imaginant
comment les choses se présentent de leur point de vue.
Fantasy scale 12 Il est assez rare que je sois très pris(e) par un bon livre ou un
bon film. (R)
Personal distress 13 Quand je vois quelqu’un se blesser, j’ai tendance à garder mon
calme. (R)
Empathic concern 14 D’habitude, les malheurs des autres ne me perturbent pas
beaucoup. (R)
Perspective taking 15 Si je suis certain(e) d’avoir raison à propos de quelque chose,
je ne perds pas mon temps à écouter les arguments des au-
tres. (R)
Fantasy scale 16 Après avoir vu une pièce de théâtre ou un film, il m’est arrivé
de me sentir dans la peau d’un des personnages.
Personal distress 17 Etre dans une situation émotionnelle tendue m’effraie.
Empathic concern 18 Quand je vois quelqu’un se faire traiter injustement, il m’arrive
de ne pas éprouver beaucoup de pitié pour lui. (R)
Personal distress 19 Je suis habituellement assez efficace pour gérer des situations
d’urgences. (R)
Empathic concern 20 Je suis souvent très touché(e) par des événements dont je suis
témoin.
Perspective taking 21 Je crois qu’il y a deux facettes à chaque question et j’essaie de
les considérer toutes les deux.
(continued on next page)
Note.—(R) indicates reversed scored item.

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 740 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 FRENCH VERSION OF THE INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX 741

TABLE 1 (CONT’D)
ITEM COMPOSITION OF THE IRI: FRENCH VERSION (2015)
Factor No. Item
Empathic concern 22 Je pourrais me décrire comme quelqu’un au coeur assez ten-
dre.
Fantasy scale 23 Quand je regarde un bon film, je peux très facilement me
mettre à la place d’un des personnages principaux.
Personal distress 24 J’ai tendance à perdre mon sang froid dans des situations cri-
tiques.
Perspective taking 25 Quand je suis fâché(e) sur quelqu’un, j’essaie habituellement
de me mettre à sa place pendant un moment.
Fantasy scale 26 Quand je lis un roman ou une histoire intéressant(e), j’imagine
comment je me sentirais si les événements de l’histoire
m’arrivaient.
Personal distress 27 Quand je vois quelqu’un qui a vraiment besoin d’aide dans
une situation critique, je perds les pédales.
Perspective taking 28 Avant de critiquer quelqu’un, j’essaie d’imaginer comment je
me sentirais si j’étais à sa place.
Note.—(R) indicates reversed scored item.

were made for each sex to explore the contribution of the social desirabil-
ity in the IRI scores. Cronbach's α coefficients (Cronbach, 1951) were com-
puted on each factor to evaluate reliability or internal consistency.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; using Lavaan, version 0.5–17; Ros-
seel, 2012) was carried out to assess the original four-factor structure of the
scale. The adequacy of the model was assessed through an examination of
a variety of fit indices. Model χ2 and the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler,
1990) were utilized to estimate overall model fit. A reasonable fit requires
a CFI value ≥ 0.90, whereas a good fit implies a value ≥ 0.95. The root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993) requires
a value ≤ 0.06 to indicate an acceptable model fit. The last index consid-
ered was the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; Bentler,
1990) for which a value ≤ 0.06 indicates a good fit, and a value ≤ 0.08 indi-
cates a reasonable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Due to poor multivariate nor-
mality, the maximum likelihood method (ML) was employed with Satorra
and Bentler's “robust” correction (Satorra & Bentler, 1994), which adjusts
the model for deviation from normality. This method produces a scaled χ2
statistic and robust standard errors with which to test the statistical signif-
icance of the model parameters.
After inspection of the model fit and the modification indices, an ex-
ploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to evaluate alternative and pos-
sibly better fitting models. In combination with an interpretation of the
factors’ content, a parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) was used with R (R Core
Team, 2014) to explore other models and to choose the best one. This pro-

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 741 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 742 S. BRAUN, ET AL.

cedure is a Monte Carlo simulation method known to be more realistic

than the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin indice (Kaiser, 1960) and the scree test (Cat-
tel, 1966) in determining the number of factors to retain. The EFA (with
promax rotation) was done on a random first half sample (n = 624) of stu-
dents while the second half of the sample (n = 620) was used to test the
model obtained with another CFA.
RESULTS
Comparisons between the excluded participants (n = 153) and the
final sample (n = 1,244) suggested no differences in sex ratio (respectively,
41.8 vs 42.9% for men and 58.2 vs 57.1% for women; χ21 = 0.07, p = .80). The
excluded participants were, however, slightly but significantly older than
the final participants (M age = 19.9 yr., SD = 1.9 vs M age = 19.6 yr., SD = 1.6,
respectively; t1395 = 2.37, p = .02).
Concerning the mean scores, Davis found (1980) that women had
higher scores than men for each subscale. This significant sex difference
was observed in three of the four subscales in the current sample as well,
with no significant difference but a slight tendency for the perspective tak-
ing subscale (p = .09) (Table 2). However, as long as measurement invari-
ance is not acknowledged, no interpretation regarding the latent means
across sex can be formulated.
TABLE 2
IRI SCORES BY SUBSCALE AND GENDER
Fantasy Scale Perspective Taking Empathic Concern Personal Distress
Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men
Original version of the IRI by Davis (n = 1,161; 582 women vs 579 men)
M 18.75 15.73 17.96 16.78 21.67 19.04 12.28 9.46
SD na1 na na na na na na na
Fdf F1, 1176 = 96.28 F1, 1180 = 18.25 F1, 1180 = 129.09 F1, 1181 = 103.10
p < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001
Present study (Study 1; n = 1,244; 710 women vs 534 men)
M 18.46 15.63 17.00 16.55 20.39 17.65 13.39 10.78
SD 5.29 5.19 4.49 4.54 4.17 4.71 4.48 4.50
t1242 9.44 1.72 10.87 10.15
p .001 .09 < .001
1
na: not available.

As expected, the contribution of social desirability in IRI scores was

important. With the exception of the perspective-taking scale, Pearson
correlations between the IRI subscale score and the Crowne-Marlowe total
score were all significant (Table 3).

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 742 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 FRENCH VERSION OF THE INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX 743

TABLE 3
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN IRI SUBSCALES AND SOCIAL DESIRABILITY (CROWNE-MARLOWE SCALE)
Fantasy Perspective Empathic Personal
Scale Taking Concern Distress
Study 1 Women (n = 590) .37 −.08 .24 −.19
(n = 1,031) p < .001 .06 < .001 < .001
Men (n = 441) .32 −.08 .18 −.24
p < .001 .10 < .001 < .001

The internal consistency reliabilities were evaluated with Cronbach's

α coefficients. These varied and were generally lower than in Gilet, et al.
(2013) for each subscale, with αs ranging from .65 to .76 (Table 4).

TABLE 4
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY RELIABILITY (CRONBACH'S αS) IN STUDIES 1 AND 2 COMPARED
TO GILET, ET AL. (2013)

Fantasy Perspective Empathic Personal

Scale Taking Concern Distress
Study 1 (n = 1,244; 28 items) .76 .65 .75 .71
Study 2 (n = 729; 15 items) .76 .62 .60 .70
Gilet, et al. (2013) .81 .71 .70 .78

Based on the structure obtained by Davis (1980), a four-factor, 28-

item model with correlations between the four subscales was tested with
a CFA on the full sample (n = 1,244). The results showed a reasonable
model fit with regard to the RMSEA and SRMR values but the CFI value
was insufficient (Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2344 = 1,453.25, p < .001, CFI = 0.81,
RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.06). An inspection of the modification indices
does not suggest an easy fix. At best, considering a correlation between
the residuals of Items 7 and 12 (that both belong to the Fantasy Scale) and
admitting some cross-loadings between Item 10 (that belongs to the Per-
sonal Distress Scale) and the Empathic Concern Scale could slightly but
not significantly improve the χ2 value.
Even if the four-factor structure proposed by Davis (1980) is in some
cases valid in English studies, the results obtained here suggest that an-
other model could be more applicable in French. In order to test this hy-
pothesis, an EFA was applied to the data with the idea, according to Byrne
(1994), that the EFA is designed for situations in which links between the
observed and latent variables are unknown or uncertain. An EFA with
promax rotation was run on a 1st random half-sample (Table 5). Com-
parisons between the two random half-samples showed no significant

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 743 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 744 S. BRAUN, ET AL.

TABLE 5
FACTOR LOADINGS OF THE 28-ITEM FRENCH IRI IN STUDY 1
Fantasy Perspective Empathic Personal Other
Item
Scale Taking Concern Distress Dimension
23 .79
16 .71
5 .67
26 .57 .15 .14
12 .37 −.11 .33
1 .26 .19 −.13
28 .60
25 .59
11 .55
8 .46 −.15
21 .37 .15 −.13 −.23
3 .36 −.16 −.12 .26
15 .33 .21
2 .65 .24
9 .60 −.14 .12
20 .56 .14
14 −.11 .51 .10 .55
22 .46 .21
4 −.19 .42 .62
10 .39 .29
18 .31 .38
19 −.20 .66 .12
24 .62
13 .58 .21
27 −.12 .52 −.10
6 .24 .48
17 .23 .37
7 .27 −.16 .36
Note.—Criterion for significance is fixed to .40 (boldface). Items in italics
were cross-loaded or had low loadings and were eliminated. Items 5, 16, 23,
and 26 for the Fantasy subscale; Items 8, 11, 25, and 28 for the Perspective tak-
ing subscale; Items 2, 9, and 20 for the Empathic concern subscale, and Items
13, 19, 24, and 27 for the Personal distress subscale.

differences in term of sex ratio (41.51% men vs 58.49% women in the 1st
half-sample, and 44.35% men vs 55.65% women for the 2nd half-sample;
χ21 = 1.03, p = .72) and mean age (19.55 yr., SD = 1.67, in the 1st half-sam-
ple vs 19.59 yr., SD = 1.63, in the 2nd half-sample; t1242 = –0.37, p = .72). The

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 744 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 FRENCH VERSION OF THE INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX 745

results of the EFA with parallel analysis showed that five factors were
largely sufficient (Fig. 1).

FIG. 1. Scree plot with parallel analysis (Study 1). Closed circles replace the Kaiser crite-
rion of eigenvalue higher than 1.0.

Because there was no conceptual hypothesis for the fifth dimension

obtained except a possible methodological bias (in particular for items
negatively worded), these problematic items were removed, including
items showing cross-loadings as well as those with loadings under the
threshold of .40. This led to a shortened, four-factor, 15-item version of the
IRI (with Items 5, 16, 23, and 26 in the Fantasy subscale; Items 8, 11, 25, and
28 for the Perspective taking subscale; Items 2, 9, and 20 for the Empathic
concern subscale, and Items 13, 19, 24, and 27 for the Personal distress
subscale). A four-factor, 15-item model was tested in the 2nd half-sample
(n = 620) and showed a good model fit with regard to the CFI, RMSEA,
and SRMR values (Satorra-Bentler scaled χ284 = 196.010, p < .001, CFI = 0.92,
RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.05).
STUDY 2
Method
Participants.—Eight hundred fifty-eight students participated in this
second study. As in the first session, participants who were not sufficiently

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 745 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 746 S. BRAUN, ET AL.

fluent in French or who had omitted at least one item were excluded. Valid
data were obtained for 729 people (304 men, 425 women). The students
pursued studies in engineering (26%), medicine (20%), nursing school
(13.1%), economic sciences (13%), kinesitherapy (9.3%), psychology (7%),
law (7.5%), and dietetics (3.3%). Their ages ranged between 18 and 25 yr.
(M = 19.3, SD = 1.5).
Measure and procedure.—As in Study 1, the students received several
questionnaires including the IRI in a scheduled class time. The procedure
was nearly the same than in the first study but the session was shortened
(45 min.) to reduce possible fatigue.
Analysis.—As in Study 1, a CFA was carried out using Lavaan (Ver-
sions 0.5–17; Rosseel, 2012) to assess the four-factor, 15-item model. The
same fit indices (CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR) were examined to test the ad-
equacy of the model.
As mentioned in the Introduction, women frequently scored higher
than men on the IRI subscales. In Study 1, this result was also found for
three of the four subscales. But interpreting this apparent difference sup-
poses good stability of the structural model between men and women.
Sex invariance was then tested to ascertain that this measure was not in-
fluenced by systematic bias (Meredith, 1993). There are successive steps
to measure invariance across groups: configural invariance that tests
whether the items’ contents are the same for men and women; weak (or
metric) invariance that implies that the loadings between the items and
their respective factors are the same across groups; and strong (or sca-
lar) invariance that requires that the loadings and the thresholds are simi-
lar in both sex groups. The procedure for testing invariance implies first
testing the model separately in the two sex groups. Step-by-step tests as-
sess whether a more restrictive model differs from a less restrictive model,
based on the difference χ2 test statistic between these models.
Results
Cronbach's α coefficients.—The internal consistency reliability in the
second sample for each subscale was tested and is provided on Table 4.
They showed nearly similar values as in Study 1.
Confirmatory factor analysis.—In comparison with Study 1, the results
showed a slightly better model fit with regard to the CFI, RMSEA, and
SRMR (Satorra-Bentler scaled χ284 = 192.28, p < .001, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA =
0.04, SRMR = 0.05).
Sex invariance.—An examination of sex invariance measurement sup-
ported weak but not strong invariance across sex (Table 6). All standard-
ized factor loadings and intercepts in configural and equal loadings model
(testing for weak invariance) are presented in Table 7. A correlations ma-
trix for the latent variables is presented in Table 8.

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 746 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 FRENCH VERSION OF THE INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX 747

TABLE 6
SEX INVARIANCE TESTING OF THE 15-ITEM, FOUR-FACTOR MODEL (STUDY 2)
Model and Comparison χ2 df Δχ2 Δdf p
Model 1: baseline 262.54 168
Model 1 vs Model 2: equal loadings 278.04 179 15.41 11 .16
Model 2 vs Model 3: equal loadings + thresholds 338.61 190 93.03 11 < .001
Note.—Model 1: test for configural invariance; Model 2: test for weak invariance; Model 3:
test for strong invariance.

DISCUSSION
The goal of this work was to investigate the factor structure of a French
version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980) in large Belgian
samples. As in Gilet, et al. (2013), the results of the first study showed poor
fit for the CFI value although the RMSEA and the SRMR indices were
good. Then the structure composition of the IRI was investigated with
an EFA on a first random half-sample (Study 1) suggesting a five-factor
model that was difficult to interpret, with several cross-loadings, many
items that load their supposed factor under the threshold of .40—a meth-
odological bias with negatively worded items presumed. Omission of the
problematic items led to a four-factor, 15-item model that showed a good
fit according to the fit measures (CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR) in the second
random half-sample. This model was next replicated in a second group of
students (Study 2), showing that the factor structure was stable.
Although this four-factor, 15-item model seems reproducible across
student groups, it was necessary to go beyond these psychometric as-
pects and to consider some psychological variables that could influence
the responses. For example, a strong, positive association was found be-
tween responses to the IRI subscales and social desirability scores. Since
empathy is envisaged as a social competence and probably as a virtue in
the general population, its relation with the tendency to present oneself
in a desirable manner is not surprising. This correlation (see also Preti
& Miotto, 2011) is considered as a limitation in measuring empathy with
self-report questionnaires, because the evaluation of the construct itself is
questioned. Although humans are a social species, it may be more or less
difficult for everyone to predict his or her reaction in emotional or emer-
gency situations in terms of altruistic behavior. On self-report scales, peo-
ple overestimate tendencies to compassion, altruistic reactions, or ability
to apprehend the mental representations of other people. Measuring em-
pathic tendencies in simulation tasks might be a better way to explore this
construct and its dimensions.
In the first study, sex differences were found on three of the four
subscale scores, confirming the frequent observation of higher scores in

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 747 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 748 S. BRAUN, ET AL.

TABLE 7
STANDARDIZED FACTOR LOADINGS AND INTERCEPTS OF THE CONFIGURAL AND WEAK
INVARIANCE MODELS
Women (n = 425) Men (n = 304)
Model, Subscale, Item
Loading Intercept Loading Intercept
Configural invariance model
Fantasy scale
Item 5 .55 1.64 .44 1.25
Item 16 .72 1.61 .66 1.70
Item 23 .84 1.86 .65 2.03
Item 26 .68 2.08 .68 2.05
Perspective taking
Item 8 .55 2.73 .47 3.04
Item 11 .55 2.90 .55 2.63
Item 25 .44 1.30 .58 1.37
Item 28 .52 1.87 .65 1.81
Empathic concern
Item 2 .44 2.16 .66 1.93
Item 9 .64 3.31 .53 2.74
Item 20 .48 3.14 .58 2.63
Personal distress
Item 13 .64 1.34 .49 1.18
Item 19 .71 1.58 .51 1.53
Item 24 .56 1.43 .62 1.18
Item 27 .61 1.05 .54 1.06
Weak invariance model
Fantasy scale
Item 5 .54 1.65 .46 1.24
Item 16 .73 1.60 .64 1.72
Item 23 .82 1.89 .71 1.98
Item 26 .71 2.05 .63 2.10
Perspective taking
Item 8 .49 2.78 .53 2.96
Item 11 .55 2.89 .56 2.63
Item 25 .47 1.29 .55 1.38
Item 28 .56 1.86 .61 1.83
Empathic concern
Item 2 .50 2.12 .59 1.96
Item 9 .59 3.35 .60 2.70
(continued on next page)

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 748 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 FRENCH VERSION OF THE INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX 749

TABLE 7 (CONT’D)
STANDARDIZED FACTOR LOADINGS AND INTERCEPTS OF THE CONFIGURAL AND WEAK
INVARIANCE MODELS
Women (n = 425) Men (n = 304)
Model, Subscale, Item
Loading Intercept Loading Intercept
Item 20 .49 3.14 .56 2.62
Personal distress
Item 13 .63 1.35 .54 1.17
Item 19 .69 1.59 .58 1.51
Item 24 .60 1.41 .50 1.22
Item 27 .61 1.06 .53 1.06

women than in men. Nevertheless, a measure of sex invariance supported

weak but not strong invariance. This result suggests that the factor struc-
ture cannot be considered as absolutely similar across sex. The apparently
higher scores of women, who describe themselves as more empathic than
men, should therefore be interpreted with caution and be systematically
tested in future studies using the IRI.

TABLE 8
FACTOR CORRELATIONS FOR THE CONFIGURAL, WEAK, AND
STRONG INVARIANCE MODELS
Women (n = 425) Men (n = 304)
Model, Subscale
FS PT EC FS PT EC
Configural invariance
Fantasy scale (FS)
Perspective taking (PT) .21 .35
Empathic concern (EC) .41 .75 .25 .53
Personal distress −.06 −.24 −.01 .18 −.08 .10
Weak invariance
Fantasy scale
Perspective taking .21 .35
Empathic concern .42 .73 .24 .55
Personal distress −.05 −.23 −.10 .14 −.11 .08
Strong invariance
Fantasy scale
Perspective taking .28 .36
Empathic concern .44 .72 .25 .55
Personal distress −.04 −.23 −.10 .14 −.11 .07

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 749 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 750 S. BRAUN, ET AL.

Limitations and Conclusions

Despite good results with CFA, a limitation of this study is the pro-
posed shortened version of the IRI, and this might have some psychomet-
ric implications. For example, a diminution of the internal consistencies
of the empathic concern subscale was observed, perhaps because it was
reduced to only three items. Given that the α coefficient is largely influ-
enced by the number of items (McNemar, 1946), it is difficult to interpret
this result in terms of scale homogeneity. Moreover, using the Cronbach's
α to measure internal consistencies is nowadays contested and alterna-
tive methods like structural equation modeling are proposed (Yang and
Green, 2011). It may be that more items should be added to this subscale.
In conclusion, empathy is a complex construct including different af-
fective mechanisms (as the sensibility of others' emotion or our own emo-
tional regulation), cognitive process (as mentalizing), and behavior (of
avoidance or altruism in tense situation, for example). Knowing the limi-
tations of this self-report scale in terms of response biases but consider-
ing its clinical usefulness, a four-factor, 15-item version of the French IRI
was proposed. It is hoped that models of empathy based on neuroscience
studies could be used to hone the theoretical construct of empathy and im-
prove the content validity of the IRI, especially the relationship between
subscales. Measuring empathy with a self-report questionnaire such as
the IRI remains useful in clinical practice, but improving its psychometri-
cal qualities to avoid too many biases appears to be a necessity.
REFERENCES
ALTERMAN, A. I., MCDERMOTT, P. A., CACCIOLA, J. S., & RUTHERFORD, M. J. (2003) Latent
structure of the Davis Interpersonal Reactivity Index in methadone maintenance
patients. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 25(4), 257-265.
ATKINS, M. W., & STEITZ, J. A. (1999) The assessment of empathy: an evaluation of the
Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Retrieved March 9, 2003, from Union Univer.,
Teacher Education Program.
BENTLER, P. (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 238-246.
BLAIR, R. J. R. (2005) Responding to the emotions of others: dissociating forms of empa-
thy through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Conscious Cognition,
14, 698-718.
BOHART, A., & GREENBERG, L. S. (EDS.) (1997) Empathy reconsidered. Washington, DC: APA
Books.
BROWNE, M. W., & CUDECK, R. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage. Pp. 136-162.
BYRNE, B. M. (1994) Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: basic con-
cepts, applications, and programming. London, UK: Sage.

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 750 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 FRENCH VERSION OF THE INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX 751

CAREY, J. C., FOX, E. A., & SPRAGGINS, E. F. (1988) Replication of structure findings regard-
ing the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
and Development, 21, 102-105.
CARRASCO ORTIZ, M. A., DELGADO EGIDO, B., BARBERO GARCÍA, M. I., HOLGADO TELLO, F. P.,
& DEL BARRIO GÁNDARA, M. V. (2011) [Psychometric properties of the Interpersonal
Reactivity Index in Spanish child and adolescent population]. Psicothema, 23(4), 824-
831. [in Spanish]
CATTEL, R. B. (1966) The scree test for the numbers of factors. Multivariate Behavior
Research, 1, 245-276.
CHRISTOV-MOORE, L., SIMPSON, E. A., COUDÉ, G., GRIGAITYTE, K., IACOBONI, M., & FERRARI, P.
F. (2014) Empathy: gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience and Biobehav-
ioral Review, 46, 604-627.
CLIFFORDSON, C. (2002) The hierarchical structure of empathy: dimensional organization
and relations to social functioning. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 49-59.
CRONBACH, L. J. (1951) Coefficient alpha and internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16, 297-334.
CROWNE, D. P., & MARLOWE, D. (1960) A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349-354.
DAVIS, M. H. (1980) A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.
JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10(4), 85.
DAVIS, M. H. (1983) Empathic concern and the muscular dystrophy telethon: empathy as
a multidimensional construct. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 223-229.
DAVIS, M. H. (1994) Empathy: a social psychological approach. Madison, WI: Brown &
Benchmark.
DECETY, J. (2002) Naturaliser l’empathie [Empathy naturalized]. L’Encéphale [The Brain],
28, 9-20.
DECETY, J. (2011) Dissecting the neural mechanisms mediating empathy. Emotion Review,
3, 92-108.
DECETY, J., & JACKSON, P. L. (2004) The functional architecture of human empathy. Behav-
ioral Cognitive Neuroscience Review, 3, 71-100.
DE CORTE, K., BUYSSE, A., VERHOFSTADT, L. L., ROEYERS, H., PONNET, K., & DAVIS, M. H. (2007)
Measuring empathic tendencies: reliability and validity of the Dutch version of
the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Psychologica Belgica, 47(4), 235-260.
DUAN, C., & HILL, C. E. (1996) The current state of empathy research. Journal of Counsel-
ing Psychology, 43, 261-274.
DYMOND, R. (1949) A scale for the measurement of empathic ability. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 13, 127-133.
DYMOND, R. (1950) Personality and empathy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 14, 343-
350.
ENZMANN, D. (1996) Gestresst, erschöpft oder ausgebrannt? Einflüsse von Arbeitssitation,
Empathie und coping auf der Burnoutprozess [Stressed out, exhausted or burned out?
Influence of work situation, empathy and coping in the burnout process]. Munich, Ger-
many: Profil.
FESCHBACH, N. (1997) Empathy: the formative years—implications for clinical practice.
In A. Bohart & L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), Empathy reconsidered. Washington, DC: APA
Books.

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 751 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 752 S. BRAUN, ET AL.

GILET, A-L., MELLA, N., STUDER, J., GRÜHN, D., & LABOUVIE-VIEF, G. (2013) Assessing dis-
positional empathy in adults: a French validation of the Interpersonal Reactivity
Index (IRI). Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du
comportement, 45(1), 42-48.
HAWK, S. T., KEIJSERS, S., BRANJE, S. J. T., VAN DER GRAAFF, J., DE WIED, M., & MEEUS, W.
(2012) Examining the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) among early and late
adolescents and their mothers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(1), 96-106.
HOGAN, R. (1969) Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 33, 307-316.
HORN, J. L. (1965) A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psy-
chometrika, 30, 179-185.
HU, L., & BENTLER, P. M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Model-
ing, 6, 1-55.
IBM CORP. (2013) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
JOLLIFFE, D., & FARRINGTON, D. P. (2006) Development and validation of the Basic Empa-
thy Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 589-611.
KAISER, H. F. (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurements, 20, 141-151.
KANG, I., KEE, S., KIM, S. E., JEONG, B., HWANG, J. H., SONG, J. E., & KIM, J. W. (2009) Reliabil-
ity and validity of the Korean version of Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Journal of
Korean Neuropsychiatric Association, 48, 352-358.
KULICH, K. R., & BENGTSSON, H. (2002) Swedish dental students’ and dentists’ self-per-
ceived interpersonal skills measured by self-report inventories. Unpublished man-
uscript, Institut of Psychology, Lund Univer., Lund, Sweden.
LAUTERBACH, O., & HOSSER, D. (2007) Assessing empathy in prisoners: a shortened ver-
sion of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66, 91-101.
LENNON, R., PULOS, S., & ELISON, J. (2004) The hierarchical structure of the Interpersonal
Reactivity Index. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 4, 355-359.
LITVACK-MILLER, W., MCDOUGALL, D., & ROMNEY, D. M. (1997) The structure of empathy
during middle childhood and its relationship to prosocial behavior. Genetic, Social,
and General Psychology Monographs, 123(3), 303-324.
MCNEMAR, Q. (1946) Opinion-attitude methodology. Psychological Bulletin, 43, 289-374.
MEHRABIAN, A. (1996) Manual for the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES). Monterey,
CA: Author.
MEHRABIAN, A., & EPSTEIN, N. A. (1972) A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Per-
sonality, 40, 525-543.
MEREDITH, W. (1993) Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance.
Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.
MESTRE, B., FRÍAS, M. D., & SAMPER, P. (2004) La medida de la empatia: anàlisis del Inter-
personal Reactivity Index [The measure of empathy: analyses of the Interpersonal
Reactivity Index]. Psicothema, 16, 225-260.
PÉREZ-ALBÉNIZ, A., DE PAUL, J., ETXEBERRIA, J., PAZ MONTES, M., & TORRES, E. (2003) Adap-
tación de Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) al español [Spanish adaptation of
the Interpersonal Reactivity Index]. Psicothema, 15, 267-272.
PRETI, A., & MIOTTO, P. (2011) Self-deception, social desirability, and psychopathology.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(1), 37.

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 752 24/11/15 4:25 PM

 FRENCH VERSION OF THE INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX 753

R CORE TEAM. (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, Version 3.1.2.
Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://
www.R-project.org/.
RENIERS, R. L. E. P., CORCORAN, R., DRAKE, R., SHRYANE, N. M., & VÖLLM, B. A. (2011) The
QCAE: a questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. Journal of Personality
Assesment, 93(1), 84-95.
ROSSEEL, Y. (2012) Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of
Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36.
SATORRA, A., & BENTLER, P. M. (1994) Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in
covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables
analysis: application for developmental research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp. 399-
419.
SIU, A. M. H., & SHEK, D. T. L. (2005) Validation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index in
a Chinese context. Research on Social Work Practice, 15, 118-126.
WATSON, P. J., & MORRIS, R. J. (1991) Narcissism, empathy and social desirability. Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 12(6), 575-579.
WISE, P. S., & CRAMER, S. H. (1988) Correlates of empathy and cognitive style in adoles-
cence. Psychological Reports, 63, 179-192.
YANG, Y., & GREEN, S. B. (2011) Coefficient alpha: a reliability coefficient for the 21st cen-
tury? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 377-392.

Accepted September 3, 2015.

08-PR_Braun_150062.indd 753 24/11/15 4:25 PM

View publication stats