Interpersonal Reactivity Index

1. Abstract

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) is widely recognized as the preeminent multidimensional psychometric self-report instrument designed to quantify individual differences in both cognitive empathy and affective empathy. Developed by Mark H. Davis in 1980 and formally validated in 1983, the instrument was conceived to challenge unidimensional conceptualizations of empathy by disaggregating the psychological phenomenon into four distinct, functionally related yet structurally autonomous facets: Perspective Taking (PT), Fantasy (FS), Empathic Concern (EC), and Personal Distress (PD). The complete measurement tool comprises 28 self-report items evenly distributed across these four subscales (7 items per subscale), rated on an authentic 5-point Likert scale originally labeled from A to E, systematically scored from 0 (“Does not describe me well”) to 4 (“Describes me very well”), with nine items reverse-scored to mitigate acquiescence bias.

Extensive psychometric investigations over four decades across clinical, forensic, developmental, and social neuroscience contexts have consistently substantiated the construct validity, criterion validity, and cross-cultural reliability of the IRI. Internal consistency estimates typically yield Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between .70 and .85 across diverse demographic cohorts, with test-retest reliability demonstrating notable temporal stability over intervals ranging from two months to several years. Structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analyses consistently support the four-factor orthogonal or modestly correlated multidimensional architecture over alternative unifactorial or two-factor solutions. By capturing cognitive role-taking capacities, imaginative transport into fictional contexts, other-oriented compassionate feelings, and self-oriented aversive distress during interpersonal crisis, the IRI remains an indispensable cornerstone in affective neuroscience, social psychology, psychopathology, psychiatric diagnostics, and organizational behavior.

2. Keywords

Interpersonal Reactivity Index, cognitive empathy, affective empathy, perspective taking, empathic concern, personal distress, fantasy subscale, psychometrics, social neuroscience, Mark H. Davis, multidimensional empathy, prosocial behavior, emotional contagion, self-report measurement, construct validity

3. Authors

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index was conceptualized, developed, and standardized by Mark H. Davis, Ph.D., an eminent American social psychologist and professor emeritus of psychology at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Florida, United States. Davis completed his doctoral research in social psychology at the University of Texas at Austin under the mentorship of pioneering personality and social psychologists. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Davis identified pervasive empirical inconsistencies in social psychological research concerning the relation between empathy and altruism, prosocial behavior, aggression, and interpersonal functioning. He attributed these contradictions to the psychometric conflation of distinct cognitive and emotional mechanisms under overly broad, unidimensional scales such as the Hogan Empathy Scale (HES) and the Mehrabian and Epstein Emotional Empathic Tendency Scale (EETS).

Davis’s landmark empirical contributions were published across a series of foundational articles, most notably in the JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology (1980) and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1983). Throughout his academic tenure at Eckerd College, Dr. Davis published extensively on interpersonal relationships, organizational empathy, social conflict, and altruism, cementing his status as one of the definitive authorities in the operationalization and psychological measurement of empathetic responsiveness.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index is to provide behavioral scientists, clinical psychologists, neuroscientists, and social researchers with a rigorously validated, structurally nuanced measurement tool capable of disentangling the multidimensional nature of human empathy. Historically, the scientific investigation of empathy was impeded by contradictory operational definitions. One major theoretical camp, influenced by developmental psychologist Jean Piaget and social psychologist George Herbert Mead, conceptualized empathy fundamentally as an intellectual or cognitive capacity—specifically, the cognitive ability to adopt another person’s psychological perspective, infer their internal mental and emotional states, and accurately decode social situations. The alternate theoretical lineage, championed by scholars such as Edward Titchener, William McDougall, and Albert Mehrabian, framed empathy predominantly as a visceral, vicarious affective reaction to the observed emotional experiences of another individual.

By conceptualizing empathy as a multi-component operational system rather than a monolithic global construct, Davis formulated the IRI to accomplish several vital clinical, scientific, and empirical objectives. First, the instrument isolates the differential contributions of cognitive processing and emotional responsivity in social cognition. In empirical research on prosocial behavior, distinguishing whether helping actions stem from cognitive perspective taking, genuinely altruistic other-oriented sympathy, or a selfish desire to relieve one’s own vicarious personal discomfort is paramount. The IRI operationalizes these subtle psychological nuances with psychometric precision.

Second, in clinical psychology and psychiatric diagnostics, the IRI serves as a critical diagnostic and evaluative tool across diverse neuropsychiatric conditions. Pathologies such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), psychopathy, narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), and borderline personality disorder (BPD) exhibit profound dissociations between cognitive and affective empathy. For instance, individuals diagnosed with psychopathic personality traits frequently display intact or superior cognitive perspective taking—enabling effective social manipulation and deception—paired with profound deficits in affective empathic concern. Conversely, individuals on the autism spectrum frequently exhibit atypical cognitive perspective taking alongside normative or even hyper-reactive emotional concern and personal distress. The IRI provides clinicians and researchers with the granular psychometric data necessary to map these distinctive socio-cognitive profiles.

Third, in the fields of social and affective neuroscience, the IRI is routinely integrated into functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalographic (EEG) protocols to correlate self-reported individual differences in specific empathic dimensions with distinct neuroanatomical circuits. Perspective Taking correlates strongly with activity within the default mode network and theory of mind circuits, including the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). In contrast, Empathic Concern and Personal Distress differentially engage the anterior insula (AI), the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and subcortical limbic structures involved in pain processing and affective arousal. The IRI thus provides the indispensable behavioral baseline upon which contemporary social neuroscience paradigms are erected.

5. Psychological Construct

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index conceptualizes empathy not as a singular emotional state or cognitive skill, but as a set of distinct yet functionally interrelated psychological constructs. Davis defined empathy broadly as a “reaction of one individual to the observed experiences of another.” Within this overarching framework, the IRI delineates four specific, operationalized dimensions, each represented by a dedicated 7-item subscale:

Perspective Taking (PT)

The Perspective Taking subscale measures the reported tendency of an individual to spontaneously adopt the psychological point of view, cognitive framework, or perceptual standpoint of other people in everyday life. It embodies the purely cognitive facet of empathy, reflecting deliberate cognitive flexibility, social decentralization, and intellectual role-taking capacity. High scorers systematically attempt to step outside their egocentric perspective to comprehend why others think, act, and feel the way they do, prior to forming judgments or engaging in interpersonal confrontation. Prototypic behaviors include looking at all sides of a disagreement before making a decision and imagining interpersonal dynamics from an adversary’s viewpoint. Within cognitive psychology, high PT is associated with advanced Theory of Mind (ToM) capacities, greater executive function, lower cognitive rigidity, enhanced conflict-resolution skills, and superior social competence.

Fantasy (FS)

The Fantasy subscale evaluates the respondent’s imaginative propensity to project themselves into the fictional feelings, psychological states, and actions of characters depicted in novels, plays, motion pictures, television narratives, or artistic works. Rather than evaluating real-world social interactions, the FS dimension measures narrative immersion, imaginative emotional transposition, and imaginative involvement. A high score on this subscale indicates a pronounced capacity for deep narrative transport and imaginative daydreaming, wherein the emotional and situational experiences of fictional protagonists evoke profound cognitive and affective resonance within the individual. Although historically viewed with skepticism by researchers focused exclusively on real-world altruism, modern cognitive science and media psychology regard the Fantasy subscale as an essential index of imaginative simulation, transportation theory, and aesthetic responsiveness.

Empathic Concern (EC)

The Empathic Concern subscale assesses other-oriented feelings of sympathy, compassion, warmth, and tender concern for individuals who are experiencing misfortune, distress, suffering, or social vulnerability. Distinct from cognitive understanding, EC represents a purely affective, prosocial emotional disposition that is allocentric (other-directed) rather than egocentric. When encountering an individual who is being victimized, impoverished, or physically injured, individuals high in Empathic Concern experience a compassionate desire to alleviate the suffering of that person. In social psychology, as delineated in C. Daniel Batson’s empathy-altruism hypothesis, Empathic Concern is the core emotional engine driving genuine altruism—motivating prosocial interventions even when escape from the situation is easy and no social rewards or reputational benefits are anticipated.

Personal Distress (PD)

The Personal Distress subscale measures self-oriented feelings of personal anxiety, fear, apprehension, emotional dysregulation, and discomfort when witnessing the extreme distress, trauma, or emergency suffering of others. In sharp structural contrast to Empathic Concern, which is other-oriented and manifests as warm, outward-directed compassion, Personal Distress is strictly egocentric and aversive. When exposed to tense emotional crises, severe physical accidents, or screaming victims, individuals high in PD become overwhelmed, fearful, and psychologically disorganized, often feeling helpless or losing control. Consequently, high PD is systematically linked in empirical literature to high neuroticism, emotional vulnerability, social anxiety, and poor emotional regulation. In behavioral experiments, high Personal Distress frequently motivates avoidance or flight behaviors—individuals act to escape the distressing scene in order to attenuate their own vicarious visceral suffering, rather than providing constructive aid to the actual victim.

6. Theoretical Framework

The foundational theoretical framework undergirding the Interpersonal Reactivity Index is Davis’s Multidimensional Model of Empathy, formally synthesized in 1983 and expanded in his 1994 monograph, Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach. Davis formulated this theoretical paradigm to reconcile decades of fragmented empirical scholarship characterized by divergent definitions, incompatible measurement instruments, and contradictory findings regarding the outcomes of empathic arousal.

Davis’s organizational model conceptualizes empathy as an ongoing, dynamic transactional episode structured into four interactive, chronological phases:

• Antecedents: Characteristics of the person (e.g., biological temperament, socialization history, cognitive maturity, baseline empathic disposition) and characteristics of the situation (e.g., the strength of the emotional stimulus, the salience of the victim’s distress, the degree of interpersonal similarity or relationship closeness between observer and target).
• Processes: The specific cognitive, perceptual, and physiological mechanisms brought into operation by the observer when exposed to the target. Davis categorized these into: (a) non-cognitive processes, such as primary circular reactions and motor mimicry; (b) simple cognitive processes, including classical conditioning and direct association; and (c) advanced cognitive processes, comprising language-mediated associations and elaborate perspective taking.
• Intrapersonal Outcomes: The cognitive and affective changes occurring within the observer as a result of these processes. Affective outcomes split dramatically into parallel affective reactions (empathic concern, compassion) and reactive affective responses (personal distress, anxiety). Cognitive outcomes include accurate interpersonal perception, causal attribution restructuring, and enhanced understanding of the target’s mental state.
• Interpersonal Outcomes: The observable behavioral actions undertaken by the observer toward the target, including altruistic helping behavior, aggression inhibition, conflict resolution, verbal comfort, or physical avoidance and flight.

Within this overarching theoretical architecture, the 28 items of the IRI are designed to assess enduring individual differences situated at the intersection of Processes and Intrapersonal Outcomes. Specifically, Perspective Taking measures an advanced cognitive process; Fantasy measures the cognitive and imaginative projection process within simulated environments; Empathic Concern assesses an other-oriented affective outcome; and Personal Distress captures a self-oriented affective outcome. By mathematically separating these dimensions, Davis’s framework resolved the longstanding paradox of why “empathy” sometimes leads to extraordinary self-sacrificing altruism (driven by high EC and high PT) and at other times produces paralysis, panic, and selfish flight (driven by high PD in the absence of cognitive emotional regulation).

7. Validity

The validity of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index has been extensively scrutinized and confirmed through empirical studies spanning clinical, social, personality, and neuroscientific literature across four decades.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In his seminal validation studies, Davis (1983) established construct validity by demonstrating predicted patterns of convergence and divergence between the four IRI subscales and established personality inventories, including the Hogan Empathy Scale (HES), the Mehrabian-Epstein Emotional Empathic Tendency Scale (EETS), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), and measures of interpersonal functioning. Perspective Taking (PT) correlated positively with measures of social functioning, interpersonal competence, self-esteem, and cognitive flexibility, while exhibiting negative correlations with neuroticism, social anxiety, and dogmatism. Conversely, Personal Distress (PD) exhibited strong positive correlations with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Spielberger Trait Anxiety, and neuroticism, while correlating negatively with social self-esteem, self-efficacy, and interpersonal ease.

Empathic Concern (EC) demonstrated significant positive correlations with the EETS (.60 for males, .57 for females), altruistic motivation, and tender-mindedness, establishing its validity as an authentic measure of emotional compassion. The Fantasy (FS) subscale correlated positively with verbal intelligence, imaginative openness, and emotional reactivity, aligning precisely with theoretical predictions regarding imaginative transportation.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Predictive validity has been repeatedly demonstrated across behavioral laboratory experiments. In experimental helping paradigms modeled after Batson’s protocols, participants scoring high on Empathic Concern consistently volunteer to assist victims in distress even when informed that their assistance will remain completely anonymous and that they can immediately depart the experimental setting without penalty. Conversely, individuals scoring high in Personal Distress demonstrate significantly elevated cardiovascular arousal (e.g., galvanic skin response, accelerated heart rate) when observing graphic footage of traumatic industrial accidents, with their primary behavioral response being escape from the stimulus rather than intervention.

In forensic psychopathology, extensive research by Hare and colleagues has utilized the IRI to evaluate individuals diagnosed with psychopathy. Findings consistently reveal marked criterion validity: incarcerated psychopathic offenders display striking deficits on the Empathic Concern subscale alongside normal or near-normal scores on Perspective Taking, corroborating the clinical profile of predatory empathy characterized by intact cognitive deception coupled with profound affective callousness.

Discriminant Validity

The discriminant validity among the four subscales is evidenced by their distinct correlational profiles with the Five-Factor Model of personality (the Big Five). Meta-analytic reviews indicate that Empathic Concern is robustly associated with Agreeableness (r ≈ .45 to .55), whereas Perspective Taking is primarily associated with Openness to Experience and Agreeableness. In stark contrast, Personal Distress demonstrates robust positive associations with Neuroticism (r ≈ .40 to .50) and negative or near-zero associations with Agreeableness and Extraversion. Furthermore, the correlation between Perspective Taking and Personal Distress is consistently negative or orthogonal (typically ranging from r = -.10 to -.25), proving that intellectual role-taking and emotional distress are structurally independent constructs.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index has been rigorously evaluated across hundreds of empirical studies spanning university samples, community adults, adolescent populations, and clinical cohorts worldwide.

Internal Consistency

In Davis’s original 1980 and 1983 normative samples comprising over 1,000 undergraduate men and women, the internal consistency of the four 7-item subscales was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha (α). The coefficients demonstrated satisfactory to strong internal reliability across both genders:

• Perspective Taking (PT): Males α = .75; Females α = .78
• Fantasy (FS): Males α = .78; Females α = .79
• Empathic Concern (EC): Males α = .72; Females α = .70
• Personal Distress (PD): Males α = .78; Females α = .78

Subsequent cross-cultural validation studies across diverse languages—including Spanish (Pérez-Albéniz et al., 2003), German (Paulus, 2009), French (Gilet et al., 2013), Dutch (Hawk et al., 2013), and Chinese (Siu & Shek, 2005)—have demonstrated comparable internal consistency metrics, with subscale alpha coefficients consistently stabilizing within the .71 to .84 range. McDonald’s omega total (ω) estimates calculated in contemporary structural equation studies yield values consistently exceeding the .75 threshold for all four dimensions, confirming the homogeneous unidimensionality of each separate subscale.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

The temporal stability of the IRI was initially documented by Davis over a two-month test-retest interval. The resulting Pearson correlation coefficients were remarkably high, confirming that the IRI measures stable personality dispositions rather than transient emotional states:

• Perspective Taking: r = .62 for males, r = .71 for females
• Fantasy: r = .79 for males, r = .81 for females
• Empathic Concern: r = .72 for males, r = .68 for females
• Personal Distress: r = .68 for males, r = .76 for females

Longitudinal studies tracking adolescent cohorts across multi-year developmental spans have demonstrated standardized autoregressive stability coefficients ranging from .55 to .70 over two-year spans, providing substantial empirical support for the enduring trait-like quality of the four empathic reactivity domains across the lifespan.

9. Factor Analysis

The internal structural validity of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index was established through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) during its construction and subsequently corroborated via rigorous Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across numerous independent populations.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In his initial scale construction, Davis administered an initial pool of approximately 50 candidate empathy items to extensive cohorts of university students. Principal Axis Factoring and Principal Components Analysis with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations were conducted. The empirical scree test and eigenvalue criteria (eigenvalues > 1.0) unambiguously demonstrated a robust four-factor solution. The four extracted factors precisely reflected the theoretical dimensions of Fantasy, Perspective Taking, Empathic Concern, and Personal Distress. Davis systematically retained the top 7 items displaying the highest primary factor loadings (invariably exceeding .40, with the vast majority ranging between .50 and .75) and the lowest secondary cross-loadings (consistently below .25).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent psychometric investigations have subjected the theoretical four-factor model to rigorous CFA testing against plausible alternative architectures, such as a unidimensional general empathy model, an uncorrelated four-factor model, and a hierarchical two-factor model (aggregating PT and FS into Cognitive Empathy, and EC and PD into Affective Empathy). The four-factor correlated model consistently displays superior goodness-of-fit across standard structural equation indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Typically between .91 and .95
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically between .90 and .94
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Consistently within the acceptable boundary of .042 to .058 (with 90% confidence intervals spanning .038–.062)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values typically ranging from .045 to .060

Alternative single-factor or two-factor models invariably demonstrate poor fit (e.g., CFI < .75, RMSEA > .10), statistically refuting the conceptualization of empathy as a singular global construct. Factor intercorrelations derived from CFA models align closely with theoretical postulates: Perspective Taking and Empathic Concern demonstrate a moderate positive correlation (r ≈ .30 to .45); Fantasy correlates modestly with Empathic Concern (r ≈ .25 to .35) and Perspective Taking (r ≈ .15 to .25); whereas Personal Distress exhibits a weak negative or null correlation with Perspective Taking (r ≈ -.15 to .00) and a negligible correlation with Empathic Concern (r ≈ .05 to .15).

Measurement Invariance

Extensive multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA) have confirmed that the IRI demonstrates configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance across biological sex, age brackets, and cross-national translations. Although females systematically report higher mean baseline scores on Empathic Concern, Personal Distress, and Fantasy than males, structural invariance testing confirms that the underlying factor loadings, item intercepts, and residual variances operate equivalently across genders, confirming that observed demographic differences reflect authentic psychological variance rather than psychometric measurement bias.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) is structured as a multidimensional, objective, self-administered psychometric questionnaire. Below are the definitive technical specifications and administration parameters of the instrument:

• Test Type: Standardized self-report multidimensional personality rating scale.
• Item Count: 28 declarative statements, balanced equally into four 7-item subscales.
• Subscale Composition:
  • Perspective Taking (PT): Items 3, 8, 11, 15, 21, 25, 28 (evaluates cognitive role-taking).
  • Fantasy (FS): Items 1, 5, 7, 12, 16, 23, 26 (evaluates fictional narrative immersion).
  • Empathic Concern (EC): Items 2, 4, 9, 14, 18, 20, 22 (evaluates other-oriented compassion).
  • Personal Distress (PD): Items 6, 10, 13, 17, 19, 24, 27 (evaluates self-oriented emergency anxiety).
• Authentic Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale (originally labeled A to E): 0 = Does not describe me well, 1 = Describes me slightly well, 2 = Describes me moderately well, 3 = Describes me well, 4 = Describes me very well (alternatively scored 1 to 5).
• Scoring and Directionality:
  • Reverse-Scored Items (9 items): Items 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 19. For these items, values must be mathematically inverted prior to scale aggregation (under the standard 0–4 format: 0 becomes 4, 1 becomes 3, 2 remains 2, 3 becomes 1, and 4 becomes 0; under a 1–5 scoring format: 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4, etc.).
  • Directly Scored Items (19 items): Items 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28.
  • Subscale Aggregation: Subscale scores are calculated by summing the scores of the 7 constituent items for each respective subscale. Using the standard 0–4 scale, each subscale score ranges from 0 to 28. If using a 1–5 scoring scale, each subscale score ranges from 7 to 35.
  • Absence of a Global Composite Score: Methodological guidelines established by Davis strictly advise against combining the four subscales into a single composite total empathy score. Because Perspective Taking and Personal Distress represent functionally orthogonal and often inversely related constructs, summing them obscures critical individual differences and degrades psychometric validity.
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes for complete self-administration.
• Target Population: Adolescents (aged 12 and older) and adults across normative, clinical, educational, occupational, and correctional settings.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index was formally established in 1980 and published in its final standardized peer-reviewed form in 1983 by Mark H. Davis. In alignment with open academic scholarship and non-commercial scientific dissemination, Dr. Davis placed the instrument in the public academic domain for non-commercial research, educational, and clinical applications. Consequently, researchers, graduate students, and clinical practitioners are permitted to administer, reproduce, score, and translate the IRI without paying licensing fees or obtaining explicit formal written consent, provided that appropriate academic citation to the original 1980 and 1983 validation publications is maintained in all resultant works.

For commercial deployment, proprietary software integration, for-profit executive coaching platforms, or commercial psychometric testing portals, parties are expected to contact the copyright holder or primary author to discuss intellectual property guidelines. The full instrument, scoring syntax, and original normative tables remain broadly accessible through university libraries, psychological assessment repositories, and academic publications.

12. References

Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341065.001.0001

Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Westview Press.

Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582304267187

Eisenbarth, H., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Yarkoni, T. (2015). Using a broad-based psychometric approach to untangle the structure of psychopathy and empathy. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 6(3), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000102

Gilet, A. L., Mella, N., Studer, J., Grühn, D., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (2013). Assessing dispositional empathy in French: Validation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index and analysis of gender and age differences. Psychological Reports, 113(1), 282–302. https://doi.org/10.2466/08.02.PR0.113x10z7

Hawk, S. T., Keijsers, L., Branje, S. J., Graaff, C. A., de Wied, M., & Meeus, W. (2013). Examining the structure of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index in early and late adolescence. Assessment, 20(5), 639–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112449887

Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00078.x

Paulus, C. (2009). Der Saarbrücker Empathietest (SPF-IRI): Ein Verfahren zur Messung von Empathie. Universität des Saarlandes.

Pérez-Albéniz, A., de Paúl, J., Etxeberría, J., Montes, M. P., & Torres, E. (2003). Adaptación del Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) al español. Psicothema, 15(2), 267–272.

Siu, A. M., & Shek, D. T. (2005). Validation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index in a Chinese context. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(2), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731504270384

13. Items of the Scale