TABLE 2.
Characterization of the samples used by the different studies (N = 50 – ranked from most studied to least studied).
| Instrument | Author/year | Country | Sample |
||
| N/Sex | Age-years (x̄/DP) | Level of education | |||
| Empathy Quotient (EQ) (11 studies) | Kim and Lee (2010) | Canada | 322♀/156♂ | 27,2 (NI) | 44% CS/56% UD |
| Preti et al. (2011) | Italy | 138♀/118♂ | 24.0 (4.5) | 43% HS/30.5% ES/26.5% UD | |
| Rodrigues et al. (2011) | Portugal | 329♀/177♂ | 33.9 (11.7) | Not informed | |
| Gouveia et al. (2012) | Brazil | 134♀/103♂ | 31.0 (14.1) | 52.3% CS | |
| Wright and Skagerberg (2012) | United States | 2126♀/3060♂ | 45 to 54 | Not informed | |
| Kosonogov (2014) | Russia | 121♀/100♂ | 24.9 (7.7) | 33% CS/33% UD | |
| Senese et al. (2016) | Italy | 409♀/224♂ | 24.3 (5.9) | Not informed | |
| Kose et al. (2018) | Turkey | 195♀/241♂ | 22.6 (7.2) | 89.9% CS | |
| Redondo and Herrero-Fernández (2018) | Spain | 350♀/121♂ | 20.0 (2.0) | CS | |
| Zhang et al. (2018) | China | 754♀/884♂ | EFA group: 20.7 (2.1)/CFA group: 21.7 (3.2) | CS | |
| Zhao et al. (2018) | China | 375♀/213♂ | 24.1 (6.2) | 15.4 (2.2 years) | |
| Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (10 studies) | Fernández et al. (2011) | Chile | 234♀/201♂ | 20.1 (1.9) | CS |
| Sampaio et al. (2011) | Brazil | S1: 176♀/74♂/S2: 144♀/107♂ | S1: 20.8 (1.9)/S2 = 20.8 (1.9) | CS | |
| Gilet et al. (2013) | Switzerland | 190♀/132♂ | 49.5 (21.1) | UN | |
| Koller and Lamm (2014) | Austria | 1203♀♂ | 18 to 81 | 54.6% CS | |
| Braun et al. (2015) | Belgium | S1: 710♀/534♂/S2: 425♀/304♂ | S1: 19.6 (1.6)/S2: 19.3 (1.5) | S1: CS/S2: CS | |
| Formiga et al. (2015) | Brazil | 254♀/397♂ | 21.1 (2.2) | CS | |
| Chrysikou and Thompson (2016) | United States | 246♀/171♂ | 33.2 (NI) | Not informed | |
| Ingoglia et al. (2016) | Italy | S1: 773♀/331♂/S2: 435♀/401♂/S3: 389♀/260♂ | S1:17.6 (3.0)/S2:20.5 (3.3)/S3: 20.5 (3.3) | S1: 74.1% HS/S2: 42.3% HS/S3: 42.1% HS | |
| Budagovskaia et al. (2017) | Russia | S1: 43♀/160♂/S2: 217♀/101♂ | S1: 17 to 25/S2: NI | S1: CS/S2: NI | |
| Lucas-Molina et al. (2017) | Spain | S1: 1780♀/719 ♂S2: 607♀/831♂ | S1: 21.1 (3.6)/S2: 40.0 (5.4) | S1: CS/S2: NI | |
| Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE) (5 studies) | Reniers et al. (2011) | United Kingdom | S1 = 434♀/206♂/S2 = 230♀/88♂ | S1 = 23.7 (7.8)/S2 = 30.0 (11.0) | 45% UD |
| Di Girolamo et al. (2017) | Italy | S1: 300♀/107♂; QS2: 224♀/61♂ | S1: 22.6 (4.6)/S2: 26.4 (7.0) | S1: CS/S2: 60% CS | |
| Myszkowski et al. (2017) | France | 275♀/143♂ | 26.1 (8.2) | 77.5% CS | |
| Queirós et al. (2018) | Portugal | 413♀/149♂ | 27.5 (10.3) | Not informed | |
| Liang et al. (2019) | China | 615♀/609♂ | 22.16 (2.93) | CS | |
| The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS) (2 studies) | Bodie (2011) | United States | S1 = 250♀/165♂/S2 = 111♀/106♂ | S1 = 20.0 (3.0)/S2 = 20.5 (2.2) | S1: 98.3% HS/S2: 98.1% HS |
| Gearhart and Bodie (2011) | United States | 191♀/154♂ | 20,3 (2.9) | CS | |
| The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) (2 studies) | Spreng et al. (2009) | Canada | S1 = 100♀/10/♂S2 = 55♀/ 24♂/S3 = 46♀/19♂ | S1: 18.8 (1.2)/S2: 18.9 (3.0)/S3: 18.6 (2.3) | S1: CS/S2: CS/S3: CS |
| Totan et al. (2012) | Turkey | 357♀/231♂ | 20.6 (NI) | UN | |
| Empathy Assessment Index (EAI) (2 studies) | Gerdes et al. (2011) | United States | 260♀/50♂ | 18 to 60 (NI) | CS |
| Lietz et al. (2011) | United States | 587♀/186♂ | 21,4 (NI) | 88.1% CS | |
| Affective and Cognitive Measure of Empathy (ACME) (2 studies) | Vachon and Lynam (2016) | United States | S1: 162♀/207♂/S2: 340♀/368♂/S3: 120♀/90♂ | S1: NI/S2: NI/S3: NI | S1: CS/S2: CS/S3: CS |
| Murphy et al. (2018) | United States | 215♀/186♂ | 35.5 (11.0) | Not informed | |
| The Mexican Empathy Scale (MxES) (1 study) | Mendez et al. (2011) | United States | S1 = 344♀/131♂/S2 = 102♀/ 34♂/S3 = 50♀/29♂ S4 = 104♀/59♂ | S1 = NI/S2 = 18 to 45/S3 = 20.3 (NI)/S4 = 18 to 22 | CS |
| Multidimensional Emotional Empathy Scale (MDEES) (1 study) | Alloway et al. (2016) | United States | 197♀/115♂ | 19.0 (NI) | CS |
| Basic Empathy Scale (BES) (1 study) | Carré et al. (2013) | France | 260♀/110♂ | 26.05 (12.4) | 67% CS |
| Empathy Inventory (EI) (1 study) | Falcone et al. (2013) | Brazil | 129♀/101♂ | 26.2 (11.8) | 50.4% CS |
| Multifaceted Empathy Test (MET) (1 study) | Foell et al. (2018) | United States | 58♀/22♂ | 19.6 (NI) | CS |
| The Vicarious Experience Scale (VES) (1 study) | Oceja Fernández et al. (2009) | Spain | S1 = 220♀/160♂/S2 = 44♀/ S3 = 19♀/21♂ | S1 = 32.7 (13.8)/S2 = NI/S3 = 33.6 (13.0) | S1: UD/S2 = CS/S3 = 67% UD |
| Interpersonal and Social Empathy Index (ISEI) (1 study) | Segal et al. (2013) | United States | 296♀/152♂ | 23.0 (5.7) | UN |
| Measure of Empathy and Sympathy (MES) (1 study) | Wang et al. (2017) | China | 388♀/220♂ | 20.6 (2.6) | 78.3% CS/21.7% UD |
| Positive Empathy Scale (PES) (1 study) | Yue et al. (2016) | China | S1: 428♀♂/S2: 503♀♂ | Not informed | CS |
| Empathic Behavior Scale (ECE) (1 study) | Auné et al. (2017) | Argentina | 946♀/222♂ | 22.0 (6.0) | CS |
| Empathy Components Questionnaire (ECQ) (1 study) | Batchelder et al. (2017) | United States | S1: 66♀/35♂. S2: 116♀/95♂ | S1: 20.3♀ (1.9)/20.40♂ (1.9)/S2: 29.2♀ (9.9)/26.0♂ (6.6) | S1: CS/S2: 47.4% CS |
| Empathy Gradient Questionnaire (EGQ) (1 study) | Hollar (2017) | United States | 78♀/83♂ | 18 to 60 | 29.8% CS/70.2% UD |
| Cognitive, Affective, and Somatic Empathy Scales (CASES) (1 study) | Park et al. (2019) | China | 172♀/176♂ | 22.7♀ (NI);/21.5♂ (NI) | CS |
| Online Empathy Questionnaire (QoE) (1 study) | Miguel et al. (2018) | Brazil | 2727♀/2074♂ | 27.73 (7.9) | 37.5% HS or less/49.2% CS/13.3% UD |
| Pictorial Empathy Test (PET) (1 study) | Lindeman et al. (2018) | Finland | S1: 49♀/42♂/S2: 2035♀/1049♂ S3: 65♀/49♂ | S1: 49.9 (NI)/S2: 27.6 (8.8)/S3: 31.0 (11.2) | S1: Not informed/S2: 54.2% CS/S3: 48.2% CS |
| Single Item Trait Empathy Scale (SITES) (1 study) | Konrath et al. (2018) | United States | 5724♀♂ | 36.0 (12.1) | Not informed |
CS, college students; ES, elementary school; HS, high school; NS, non-student; UD, university degree ♀, women; ♂, men; S, sample.