Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW

STUDENTS

Empathic Accuracy: A Study about the Difference between the Empathy Quotient Scores

of Psychology and Law Students

ALLIANZA, Ma. Andrea I.

ALULOD, Edwin Jr.

CAMPASA, Blessie H.

CARNALAN, Nadazhda Nikita

MAGNO, Paula Klaris

De La Salle University-Dasmariñas

1
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

Abstract

Articles has shown that most jobs require workers with good interpersonal skills, but some
professions require a higher level of empathy from the people who choose such work. Empathetic
people make effective practitioners in the helping professions that deal with people suffering from
various emotional or psychological disorders. Therefore it was predicted that psychology students
have a significantly high empathy quotient score in comparison to law students, which is a
profession that is often regard to as “The Most Despised Profession” in several parts of the world.
The Empathy Quotient Test and the researchers-made preliminary questions were administered to
32 students, 16 psychology students and 16 law students. The research has shown that there is no
significant difference that psychology students' empathy quotient scores are higher than of law
students. Law students’ empathy quotient scores has been found to be positively leading by two
(2) points in comparison to the empathy quotient sores of psychology students. The results were
interpreted in terms of the scale provided by the authors, Simon Baron-Cohen and Sally
Wheelwright, of the test used. The research therefore established that no matter what degree or
profession people have, no matter how serious or varied it is from one another, everyone cannot
be judged by simply knowing about what they do. Future research involving different variables
such as age, gender and other societal situations to mediate the careers believed to be for highly
empathetic individuals was suggested.

Keywords: empathy quotient scores, law student, psychology students, and higher empathetic
individuals

2
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

Introduction

The ability to empathize is an important part of social and emotional development,

affecting an individual’s behavior toward others and the quality of social relationships.

This study focuses on the role of empathy in careers, particularly the difference between

the empathy levels of Psychology and Law students. The researchers aim to answer the question:

Which between Psychology student and Law students has higher empathic quotient scores? Given

that both professions are deemed to have people working with exceptional empathizing skills.

EMPATHY

Empathy is operationally defined by researchers as the ability to feel or imagine another

person’s emotional experience. Empathy as an ability has many different implications through

decades and in different literatures. It was first explored by philosopher Theodor Lipps and was

firstly named as “Einfühlungsvermögen”, which after has been translated as “feeling into” or

“feeling together with”. It is defined as potential psychological motivator for helping others in

distress. While emphatic accuracy was defined as distinguishing and understanding emotions from

yourself and others accurately. According to an article from researchgate.net (2007) “Accuracy is

calculated by comparing each person’s inferences about what the partner was thinking and feeling

to what the partner reported thinking and feeling. For example, if a person inferred that the partner

was “feeling irritated” at a given moment, and the partner had indeed said he or she was feeling

irritated, then the person would get credit for accurately perceiving the partner. Ickes called this

accuracy as “every day mind reading.”

Barkai and Fine, lawyers who believe that the practice of law demands concentrate on the

facts of a case and leave no room for concern about the emotional state of the clients. Most lawyers
3
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

view the practice of law as a set of legal problems that must be solved like a puzzle, rather than as

a vocation which assists people who have problems involving both factual and emotional

dimensions. But Barkai and Fine further explain that empathic listening skills are valuable to

practicing lawyers in establishing with clients a rapport, which can be viewed as the development

of trust, understanding, respect, and liking between two persons. As for the empathy on

psychology, it denotes strong trends for women to report higher empathy levels than males, which

is particularly applicable to the research questions as psychology is now generally studied and

practiced by females.

On the other hand, countless theorist and professionals within related health and helping

professions have long accepted that empathy is a foundation of professional practice and has a lot

of benefits in different aspects of the practitioner-patient relationships.

According to Rifkin (2010), empathy is the cornerstone of therapeutic alliance and

treatment outcome, and personal strengths judged to vital to coping in social and professional

settings. Cohen and Wheelwright (2004) also added that, “Empathy is the drive or it is an arousal

which occurs when a need or an intense desire is felt, strong enough to motivate a person to seek

its satisfaction, it is also an ability to attribute mental states to another person/animal, and entails

an appropriate affective response in the observer to the other person’s mental state.”

The study's null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference that the empathy

quotient scores of psychology students are higher than of the law students. On the other hand, the

alternative hypothesis is that there is significant difference that the psychology's empathy quotient

scores higher than the law students' score. The study suggestively wants to obtain a possible

determination of the empathy quotient scores for both psychology and law students. The study aids

4
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

to contribute as a reference for further studies in the future about empathic accuracy of law and

psychology students.

The beneficiaries of the study will be the career-confused millennial, proving the

relationship of empathy quotient scores with career path can help them make the decision on which

profession will they take into and also for the college students, particularly psychology and law

students, because they will have a basis of their own empathy quotient scores.

Generally, this study could actually help the field of psychology through its exploration

and application of lessons particularly in the individual’s empathic accuracy. Leading to this would

expand people’s assessments of one’s individuality. Assessing one’s empathic accuracy would

help others to cope up in understanding other people’ feelings and have further knowledge of what

will be the appropriate response. Additionally, the results of this study shall be one of the tools to

validate the classic claims about the empathy quotient scores as predictor of perfect careers for the

young professionals emerging from the recently implemented K to 12 educational system.

METHODS

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were a total of 32 students: (16 law students and 16 psychology

undergraduate students) with mean age of 21.33 and 19.88, respectively. The participants comes

from different law schools, colleges, and universities in the Philippines

RESEARCH DESIGN AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

The study was a quantitative design using comparative research design. As Babbie (2010)

stated, Quantitative methods emphasize objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical,

5
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

or numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys. Quantitative

research focuses on gathering numerical data and generalizing it across groups of people or to

elucidate a particular phenomenon. In this research the researchers used a survey as a tool for

gathering data.

The sampling technique used was snowball technique, a non-probability sampling method

used when characteristics to be possessed by samples are rare and difficult to find. Researchers

find it difficult to find law students so therefore a snowball techniques was used in order for the

study to advance. This type of sampling technique works like a chain referral. After observing the

initial subject, the researcher asks for assistance from the subject to help researchers identify

people with a similar trait of interest. The respondents were asked to refer three (3) law students

at most in order for the researchers to gather more data.

MEASURES

Empathy Quotient Scale was used in the experiment to measure the empathy level of the

participants developed by Simon Baron-Cohen and Sally Wheelwright at the Autism Research

Centre at the University of Cambridge. EQ is based on a definition of empathy that

includes cognition and affect.

The psychometric properties of the empathy quotient (EQ) measured by Baron-Cohen

(2003) are examined. In particular, a test study was conducted by Sreehari et al., on a selected

sample of 120 subjects from the original sample. Correlation and factor analyses were conducted.

Result of the study indicates that the test-retest reliability was good, and the internal consistency

was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha=0.65). Positive correlations were found between the empathy

scale and other measures used. In conclusion, Empathy scale showed acceptable psychometric

6
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

properties and can be used in scientific studies. Additionally, The EQ has also demonstrated

several kinds of reliability. Lawrence found strong inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability

for the EQ. They also found that the EQ has a moderate correlation with the 'empathetic concern’

and ‘perspective taking’ sub-scales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. This is another measure

of empathy which the authors of the EQ considered to be the best empathy measure before creating

their own, but which includes sub-scales which measure more than empathy. This indicates that

the EQ has concurrent validity.

The questionnaire consists of 60 questions, of which 40 are related to empathy (1, 4, 6, 8,

10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46,

48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, and 60), and 20 relate to distraction and do not count (2, 3, 5, 7,

9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 30, 31, 33, 40, 45, 47, 51, 53, and 56). But the researchers only uses a 40

items questionnaires to avoid mortality. The possible answers to every question are as follows:

“strongly agree”, “slightly agree”, “slightly disagree”, and “strongly disagree”. For every question,

either 0, 1, or 2 points can be given. Placed randomly, 21 items in the questionnaire was scored as;

2 points for “strongly agree”, 1 point for “slightly agree” and 0 for “slightly disagree” and “strongly

disagree”. While the 19 items in the questionnaire was scored as; 2 points for “strongly disagree”

and 1 point for “slightly disagree” and 0 for “strongly agree” and “slightly agree”. Therefore, a

minimum of 0 and a maximum of 80 points can be obtained. Its reliability and validity was also

proven by the different countries who used it, like British (English language, Baron-Cohen &

Wheelwright, 2004), Japanese (Wakabayashi, BaronCohen, Uchiyama, Yoshida, Kuroda, et al.,

2007), Canadian (French language, Berthoz, Wessa, Kedia, Wicker, & Grezes, 2008), Turkish

(Bora & Baysan, 2009), South Korean (Kim & Lee, 2010), Italian (Preti, Vellante, Baron-Cohen,

Zucca, Petretto, 2011), Serbian (Dimitrijević, Hanak, Vukosavljević-Gvozden, & Opačić, 2012),

7
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

and Brazilian (Portuguese language, Gouveia, Milfont, Gouveia, Rique, & Galvão, 2012) samples.

The scores obtained after the test, is thereafter totaled, assessed and interpreted as follows; scores’

between 0-32, means that the person has a lower than average ability for understanding how other

people feel and responding appropriately; scores’ falls in between 33-52, means that the person

has an average ability for understanding how other people feel and responding appropriately and

the person knows how to treat people with care and sensitivity; scores’ falls between 53-63,

indicates that the person have an above average ability for understanding how other people feel

and responding appropriately. The participant knows how to treat people with care and sensitivity;

and lastly, the scores’ that fall between 64-80, means that the participant have a very high ability

for understanding how other people feel and responding appropriately.

PROCEDURE

The instrument used in data gathering was an online standardized test, called Empathy

Quotient Scale by Simon Baron-Cohen and Sally Wheelwright, disseminated through Google

Form. There were a total of 32 participants wherein 16 Law Students and 16 Psychology

undergraduate students asked to participate. Prior to the test proper, a letter was given to basically

inform the respondents about the study the researchers aiming for (See appendices). The said

respondents completed the online standardized test. Results were tabulated and analyzed according

to the prescribed scale of the test by the use of Microsoft Excel. The online data gathering

procedure lasted for four (4) days, starting from November 27 and ended on November 30, 2016.

The research data gathering was executed through online for the purpose of both the researchers

and respondent’s convenience.

8
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

To avoid the loss of interest of the respondents, the researchers decided to just use a 40-item

version of the questionnaire which excludes the 20 items that are considered to be filler questions

with no equivalent scores. The scores are therefore tallied manually, with the aid of Microsoft

Excel and Google Forms.

RESULTS

After all the responses were gathered, the nominal data gathered were tallied and analyzed

and the participants’ responses on the test were encoded and their empathy quotient scores were

computed using Baron-Cohen’s empathy quotient scale.

To start off the data gathering, the respondents were obliged to answer a few preliminary

questions that served as a filter for further analyzation of the results of the test given to the

respondents.

I. Is the degree you are taking, YOUR first choice?

Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2

PSYCHOLOGY STUDENTS LAW STUDENTS

44% YES YES

56% NO 50% 50% NO

9
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

The figures above shows that 44% of psych respondents’ answers ‘No’, that the degree they

took is not their first choice and 56% answered ‘Yes’ it is actually their first choice. While the law

students response is divided equally into halves with 50% yes and 50% no.

II. Factors that influenced their decision to take the degree.

Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2

Psychology Students Law Students
PARENTS AND PEERS

19% 6%
6% ACADEMIC
PARENTS AND EXCELLENCE
PEERS
25% FINANCIAL
ACADEMICS
EXCELLENCE 63% MARKETING
81%

As seen on figure 2.1 psychology respondents’ answers were divided only into two, with

81% that says it’s actually because of their parents and peers. And 19% says that it is due to their

academic excellence. In the figure 2.2, law students responses were categorized into 4, with 6%

that says it’s because of the good reputation of their course, and 6% too that says their financial

capability affects their decision. While 25% says it’s because of their academic excellence and

63% is the highest number, which says it’s because of their parents’ and peers’.

10
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

III. The EQ Results

Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2

PSYCHOLOGY STUDENTS EQ SCORES LAW STUDENTS EQ SCORES

Lower than
6%
19% average
Lower than
average Average
50% 50%
Average
Above
average
75%

As shown in the figures above, the psychology and law students’ scores significantly varied

from each other. 50% of the psychology respondents scored lower than average on their empathy

scores. The counts much greater than the law students 19%. Which means that there are more

students of psychology that has a lower than average ability in responding appropriately and

understanding of how other people feel.

The other half or 50% of psychology students scored average, which is much lower than

the law students 75%. Which means that more law students has an average ability in responding

11
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

appropriately and understanding how other people feel, and knows how to treat people with care

and sensitivity.

Additionally, there are 6% of law students that scored higher than average or above average

in contrast to psychology students who has none. Which only means that there are respondents

among the law respondents who has an above average ability for understanding how other people

feel and knows how to respond appropriately and treat people with care and sensitivity. On the

other hand none of the respondents scored on the very high empathic score.

To formally test and determine the hypothesis that Psychology students’ empathy quotient

score is significantly higher than the Law students, the “t-test two samples assuming equal

variances” was used as a statistical treatment to compare the two independent samples: Law

students and Psychology students.

As presented in the table 1 below, the means and standard deviations differs ominously

from each other. The Law Students got a higher mean of 39.38 than the Psychology Students who

got 37.31.

Table 1. Results of t-test Two Samples Assuming Equal Variances

PSYCHOLOGY LAW

Mean 37.31 39.38

SD 8.78 7.83

Variance 77.02916667 61.31666667

Observations 16 16

Pooled Variance 69.17291667

12
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 30

t Stat -0.70140831

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.244226999

t Critical one-tail 1.697260851

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.488453998

t Critical two-tail 2.042272449

The Psychology students scored significantly lower than the Law students did. The

independent samples t-test was associated statistically significant, at α=0.05, t(36)= 1.70, p=0.48.

And the tcrit value is higher than the tstat value, with the degrees of freedom (df) of 30, therefore the

alternative hypothesis (Ha) is rejected and the null hypothesis (Ho) is accepted. Therefore, the study

is not significant. Hence, there is no need for the computation of confidence interval.

To determine the magnitude of the treatment, the effect size was computed using Cohen’s
x1  x 2
d formula for independent samples, d  which resulted to 0.25 that means it has only a
s
small effect.

Discussion

13
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

The presented study focused on finding the significant differences between the empathy

quotient scores of Psychology and Law students. Specifically the existence of the large lead of

Psychology students’ Empathy Quotient scores against Law students’ empathy quotient scores.

The preliminary questions were used as a basis for further analyzation of the results of the

EQ test given. The first question was to separate those of the students that actually wanted to take

the degree from those who don’t. For the Psychology students, the results shows that almost half

of them or 44% of respondents did not voluntarily took Psychology as their first choice. Factors

that actually affects their decision are their Parents & Peers and the Academic Excellence, or the

University's reputation in educational quality, affordability and career outcomes as the major factor

that affected their decision.

For the Law students, the results show a balance division between the respondents that

wanted and did not want to take the degree. Four (4) factors arose as justifications for their choice

with Parents & Peers and Academic Excellence as the leading ones with 63% and 25%

respectively.

According to McFadden (2015), present day world is not like anything from the past

generation, where the access to information about everything is unavailable and a work in progress.

Students are making decisions about their career path in late 2000’s with gadgets that can provide

everything they need to consider to have an appropriate assessment on what they want to do for

the rest of their lives. In the midst of advancements and innovations of technology, there are five

(5) factors that steadily affects a student’s decision making for their careers. And these five are,

One, Parents & Peers – As much as students don’t like to admit that their parents affect their

decisions, parental input does matter, according to higher education consultants, Two, Financial –

14
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

A recent survey shows that the availability of financial aid heavily influences college selection.

Three, Academic Excellence and Reputation – Although students see academics as important,

they’re not looking at ranking lists to judge them but they do consider the University's reputation

in educational quality, affordability and career outcomes. Four, Geography – Location is

significant in many students’ minds, either because they want to live in a certain part of the country

or because of financial constraints, and lastly, Marketing - Nearly two-thirds use social media to

research college, nearly 3/4 students find it influential. Noticeably, these five major factors does

not give the respect needed of the psychological capacity of the student, having it being supposedly

the main predictor of someone’s career to have a job that is compatible to one’s personality.

Through this study, it was found out that the mean empathy quotient scores of both

psychology and law students are not really far from each other and that law students have an actual

2 point lead from the psychology students.

The average of all the scores gathered from the Psychology students that responded to the

test given is at 37.31 only, which means that collectively, their ability to understand how other

people feels and respond to situations appropriately is only at average. Empathetic people make

effective practitioners in the helping professions that deal with people suffering from various

emotional or psychological disorders. Their ability to empathize with their patients or clients

makes them skilled helpers who are able to alleviate suffering. It is generally expected that people

from this field should have an above average empathy skills and ability. Counter to the study’s

hypothesis half of the respondents that are under the psychology program have a below average

ability to empathize, even with 81% of them have chosen the degree first hand, still the scores

from test strongly suggests that these persons taking on a medical/social field have a below

average ability to understand other people.

15
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

On the other hand, the mean empathy quotient scores of law students that responded to the

test given is at 39.38, with an advancement of 2.06 the law students have appeared to have higher

empathy skills than of the Psychology Students. It is surprising, though under the circumstances

given by the limits of the study that those of the profession we consider to have the most self-

centered, arrogant people to be working is where the empathetic people are. The results shows that

from this profession we can also find great empathizers. Surprisingly, in comparison to the

assessment of scores of the Psychology students, Law students have a lower percentage of people

who have below average ability, with 50% and 19% respectively. In the direction of different

articles tackling about the types of lawyers currently working in the industry, we are more

conscious of those types that are considered to be unethical for they think that rules don’t apply to

them, and they would say anything, just for the sake of their cases, regardless of the fate that will

come to those of the concerned parties. Even though the scores relatively means an average

evaluation of their (respondents) empathy skills and abilities, still, the 2 points lead of the Law

Students, rejects the alternative hypothesis of this study.

The hypothesis that Psychology students’ empathy quotient score is significantly higher

than the Law students is therefore rejected. The empathy quotient score between the Law students

and the Psychology students has the slightest difference with the Law students having a two-point

lead over the empathy scores of Psychology students (see table I) where it exhibits that the means

and standard deviations differs from each other on a small scale, but rejects the theorem that state

that Psychology students have higher empathy quotient scores in comparison to that of Law

students’.

On the other hand, empathy on law students is essential for good communication and is an

important attribute for many professions. Theorists within associated social professions have long

16
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

accepted that empathy is a foundation of professional practice and benefits many aspects of the

practitioner–patient relationship. Likewise, empathy is beneficial for lawyers and their clients. In

contrast, higher empathy scores among law students have previously been reported (Kalliopuska,

1989), and may point towards a motor, embodied foundation of empathy (Gallese, Eagle, &

Migone, 2007).

The results of this study therefore shows that there are no significant difference that

psychology students' empathy quotient scores than law students, thus breaking the stereotypical

ideology of lawyers being compared to leeches feeding off human suffering and are ignorant of

the law and legal ethics, for the scores of supposedly highly empathetic persons (psychology

students) are not far from the scores of the expected highly apathetic persons in the society.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This research hypothesize whether there is a significant difference that the empathy scores of

psychology students are higher than the law students. With the t-test two samples assuming equal

variance as a statistical treatment and a two-point difference between the independent variables

empathy mean scores, it only shows that the law students have a higher empathic quotient scores,

so the hypothesis is rejected. Thus, there is no significant difference that the empathy scores of

psychology students is higher than the law students. Psychology being a well-known degree for

having all the good human values doesn’t necessarily overshadowed the law student’s good

values of also being empathic. The articles supporting the idea that law as a profession leaves no

room for having emotions and purely concentrates on the facts and reality contradicts the

research findings. This research therefore established that no matter what degree or profession

17
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

people have, no matter how serious or varied it is from one another, everyone cannot be judged

by simply knowing about what they do.

The researchers suggests for those who want to extend and proceed this study to a depth

perspective to have a consideration with different variables such as follows: First, the age of the

respondents- It is better if the ages of the selected participants should have a limit range that is

quite close together in achieving more statistically compact and comprehensive comparative

analysis. Second, the programs taken by the respondents- In selecting the participants, the future

researchers must choose programs that should be in equal putting. Third, the gender of the

respondents- In consideration to the gender, it may be also a source of significant level of

difference and more complex of statistical treatment may be used such as Analysis of variance or

ANOVA and/or Multiple Analysis of Variance or MANOVA. Fourth, different colleges/

universities- in selecting respondents or participants it is also recommendable to future researchers

to study the significant differences of various subgroups of participants from different colleges or

universities. Lastly, the researchers would also advise to test empathy quotient in other societal

situations and units, such as in educational settings, in different religious groups, in gender biases

or deviations, and the like. It would give readers more insights and broader perspectives in relation

to empathy and behavior occurring in different people and different circumstances.

18
Running head: EMPATHIC ACCURACY: A STUDY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EMPATHY QUOTIENT SCORES OF PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
STUDENTS

References:

Baron-Cohen, S. and Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of

adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences.

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163175, p. 168.

Explorable.com (Apr 24, 2009). Snowball Sampling. Retrieved Dec 07, 2016 from

Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/snowball-sampling

19