رابطه خودتفسیری و آشفتگی شخصی با همدلی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 ارشد روان‌شناسی شناختی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار گروه روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

3 استادیار گروه روان‏شناسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

مقدمه: هدف، بررسی روابط ساختاری متغیرهای خودتفسیری مستقل، خودتفسیری وابسته و آشفتگی شخصی با همدلی بود.
روش: روش پژوهش از نظر هدف، بنیادی بود و از لحاظ گردآوری داده‌ها توصیفی از نوع همبستگی، با استفاده از مدل‌یابی معادله ساختاری بود. جامعه آماری پژوهش شامل دانشجویان دختر و پسر مقطع کارشناسی دانشکده روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی و دانشکده علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه تهران بود که در سال تحصیلی 1401-1400 مشغول به تحصیل بودند. نمونه پژوهش حاضر را 280 نفر از دانشجویان دانشکده‌های مذکور تشکیل می‌دادند که با روش نمونه‌گیری در دسترس انتخاب شدند. شرکت‌کنندگان در پژوهش، پرسشنامه‌های واکنش بین فردی، بهرة همدلی، خودتفسیری و تکالیف شناختی ذهن‌خوانی از طریق چشم و بازشناسی هیجانات چهره را پاسخ دادند. به‌منظور تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها از مدل‌یابی معادله ساختاری در نرم‌افزارهای ایموس نسخه 24 و اس‌پی‌اس‌اس نسخه 24 استفاده شد.
نتایج: یافته‌ها نشان داد خودتفسیری مستقل اثر مثبت و معنادار بر همدلی دارد (001/0> P، 349/0 =β)، آشفتگی شخصی اثر منفی و معنادار بر همدلی دارد (001/0> P، 430/0- =β) و خودتفسیری وابسته اثر معنادار بر همدلی ندارد. مدل ساختاری با داده‌های گردآوری‌شده برازش مطلوب داشت.
بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج حاکی از اهمیت متغیرهای خودتفسیری مستقل و آشفتگی شخصی در حیطة همدلی است و در زمینه مداخلات مربوط به ارتقای همدلی می‌توان نقش آنها را مورد بررسی قرار داد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Relationship between Self-construal, Personal Distress, and Empathy

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyed Mahdi Mousavian 1
  • Forough Esrafilian 2
  • Hojjatollah Farahani 3
1 MSc in Cognitive Psychology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Assistant Professor of Psychometrics, Department of Psychology, Tarbiat Modares University
چکیده [English]

Introduction: This study aimed to examine the structural relationships between independent self-construal, interdependent self-construal, personal distress, and empathy.
Method: The methodology was essential for achieving its purpose. It involved descriptive and correlational data collection, utilizing structural equation modeling. The statistical population consisted of male and female undergraduate students from the faculties of psychology and social sciences at Tehran University during the 2021-2022 academic year. The sample consisted of 282 students from the faculties mentioned, who were selected using the convenience sampling method. The research participants completed the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, Empathy Quotient, Self-construal Scale, and cognitive tasks including the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test and the Test of Reading Faces. To analyze the data, structural equation modeling was conducted using AMOS version 24 and SPSS version 24 software.
Results: The study findings indicated that independent self-construal positively and significantly influences empathy (p < .001, β = 0.349), while personal distress negatively and significantly affects empathy (p < .001, β = -0.430). Additionally, interdependent self-construal was found to have no significant effect on empathy. The structural model fit well with the collected data.
Discussion and Conclusion: The results indicate the significance of the independent self-construal variable and personal distress variable in the realm of empathy. Their roles can be further explored in the context of enhancing empathy.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Empathy
  • Independent self-construal
  • Interdependent self-construal
  • Personal Distress

مراجع

  1.  

     

     

     

    1. Gazzaniga MS, Ivry RB, Mangun GR. Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind (Fifth edition). W.W. Norton & Company; 2019.
    2. Decety J, Jackson PL. The functional architecture of human empathy. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2004; 3(2): 71–100. DOI: 10.1177/1534582304267187
    3. Mousavi P, Khosravi Z, Dehshiri G. The Latent Structure of Empathy Based on Empathy Quotient in an Iranian Population. Adv Cog Sci. 2017; 19(1): 75-90.
    4. Grove R, Baillie A, Allison C, Baron-Cohen S, Hoekstra RA. The latent structure of cognitive and emotional empathy in individuals with autism, first-degree relatives and typical individuals. Mol. Autism. 2014; 5: 42. DOI: 10.1186/2040-2392-5-42
    5. Cross SE, Hardin EE, Gercek-Swing B. The What, How, Why, and Where of Self-Construal. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2011; 15(2): 142–179. DOI: 10.1177/1088868310373752
    6. Singelis TM. The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1994; 20(5): 580–591. DOI: 10.1177/0146167294205014
    7.  Markus HR, Kitayama S. A Collective Fear of the Collective: Implications for Selves and Theories of Selves. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1994; 20(5): 568–579. DOI: 10.1177/0146167294205013
    8. Markus HR, Kitayama S. Cultures and Selves: A Cycle of Mutual Constitution. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2010; 5(4): 420–430. DOI: 10.1177/1745691610375557
    9. Young Kaelber KA, Schwartz RC. Empathy and Emotional Intelligence among Eastern and Western Counsellor Trainees: A Preliminary Study. Int J Adv Couns. 2014; 36(3): 274–286. DOI: 10.1007/s10447-013-9206-8
    10. Decety J, Lamm C. Human Empathy Through the Lens of Social Neuroscience. Sci. World J. 2006; 6: 1146–1163. DOI: 10.1100/tsw.2006.221
    11. Gardner WL, Gabriel S, Lee AY. “I” Value Freedom, but “We” Value Relationships: Self-Construal Priming Mirrors Cultural Differences in Judgment. Psychol. Sci. 1999; 10(4): 321–326. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00162
    12. Dean KK, Gardner WL. How Will “I” Versus “We” Perform? An Investigation of Future Outlooks and Self-Construals. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2014; 40(8): 947–958. DOI: 10.1177/0146167214532137
    13. Liddell BJ, Felmingham KL, Das P, et al. Self-construal differences in neural responses to negative social cues. Biol Psychol. 2017; 129: 62–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.07.023
    14. Sadeghiye H, Aghababaei N, Hatami J, Khorami Bonaraki A. Comparing Situational and Dispositional Empathy, Considering The Role of Gender. Soc Psychol Res. 2011; 1(2): 1.
    15. Neumann DL, Chan RCK, Wang Y, Boyle GJ. Cognitive and affective components of empathy and their relationship with personality dimensions in a Chinese sample: Empathy and personality. Asian J Soc Psychol. 2016; 19(3): 244–253. DOI: 10.1111/ajsp.12138
    16. López-Pérez B, Carrera P, Ambrona T, Oceja L. Testing the qualitative differences between empathy and personal distress: Measuring core affect and self-orientation. Soc Sci J. 2014; 51(4): 676–680. DOI: 10.1016/j.soscij.2014.08.001
    17. Zhao Q, Neumann DL, Cao Y, et al. Culture–Sex Interaction and the Self-Report Empathy in Australians and Mainland Chinese. Front. Psychol. 2019; 10: 396. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00396
    18. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed). Guilford Press; 2005.
    19. Hardin E, Leong F, Bhagwat A. Factor Structure of the Self-Construal Scale Revisited: Implications for the Multidimensionality of Self-Construal. J Cross Cult Psychol. 2004; 35: 327–345. DOI: 10.1177/0022022104264125
    20. Cheng C, Cheung MWL, Montasem A, et al. Explaining Differences in Subjective Well-Being Across 33 Nations Using Multilevel Models: Universal Personality, Cultural Relativity, and National Income: Subjective Well-Being Across 33 Nations. J Pers. 2016; 84(1): 46–58. DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12136
    21. Panahipour S, Arabzadeh M, Alvandi S. Psychometric properties of the self-construable scale: Factor structure, reliability and validity. J Sociol Educ. 2020; 13(1): 41-51. DOI: 10.22034/ijes.2020.43779
    22. Helms JE, Henze KT, Sass TL, Mifsud VA. Treating Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficients as Data in Counseling Research. Counsel Psychol. 2006; 34(5): 630–660. DOI: 10.1177/0011000006288308
    23. Alexopoulos DS, Kalaitzidis I. Psychometric properties of Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQ-R) Short Scale in Greece. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2004; 37(6): 1205–1220. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2003.12.005
    24. MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods. 1996; 1(2): 130–149. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
    25. Davis M. A Multidimensional Approach to Individual Differences in Empathy. JSAS Catalog Sel. Doc. Psychol. 1980; 10.
    26. Laurent SM, Hodges SD. Gender Roles and Empathic Accuracy: The Role of Communion in Reading Minds. Sex Roles. 2009; 60(5–6): 387–398. DOI: 10.1007/s11199-008-9544-x
    27. Feizabadi Z, Farzad V, Shahraray M. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). J Psy Edu. 2008; 38(3): 157.
    28. Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S. The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High Functioning Autism, and Normal Sex Differences. J Autism Dev Disord. 2004; 34(2): 163–175. DOI: 10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00
    29. Abolghasemi A. The Reliability and Validation of the Empathy Quotient Scale for high school students. Q J Psychol Stud. 2009; 5(4): 9. DOI: 10.22051/psy.2009.1610
    30. Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Hill J, Raste Y, Plumb I. The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001; 42(2): 241–251. PMID: 11280420
    31. Vellante M, Baron-Cohen S, Melis M, Marrone M, Petretto D. R, Masala C, Preti A. The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test: Systematic review of psychometric properties and a validation study in Italy. Cog Neuro. 2013; 18(4): 326–354. DOI: 10.1080/13546805.2012.721728
    32. Zabihzadeh A, Nejati V, Maleki G, Radfar F, Darvishi M. The Study of Relationship between Mind Reading Ability and Big Five Factors of Personality. Adv Cog Sci. 2012; 14(1): 19-30.
    33. Ekman P. Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve communication and emotional life. Times Books/Henry Holt and Co; 2003.
    34. Ekman P, Friesen W. Photographs of Facial Affect Recognition Test. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, 1976.
    35. Ghasempour A, Fahimi S, Abolghasemi A, et al. Recognition of facial expression of emotion in patients with depression and normal people. Yafte. 2012; 14(1): 91-98.
    36. Meyers LS, Gamst G, Guarino AJ. Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Sage Publications; 2006.

    37.  Chiao JY, Mathur VA. Intergroup Empathy: How Does Race Affect 

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار