Online Marketing for a Local BakeryTeam MembersB.docx

Online Marketing for a Local Bakery
Team Members
Babitha Bokka
Srujana Kondamadugula
Shalini Desha
Shiva Aditya Rangu
Balakrishna Emani
Responsibilities of team members in the presenationSrujana
Kondamadugula: Identifying data for marketing
Identifying Data for Marketing
Marketing is one of the important aspects of running a bakery or
any food business/restaurant.A bakery can use market research
which is nothing but gathering, recording and analyzing the
data.
Gathering and recording data includes collecting data and
recording it in a computer system.
Analyzing the data includes identifying customer patterns and
other trends.There are two methods which can be used for
market research, one is primary research which gathers new
information and the other is secondary research which uses the
information which is already present.

In primary research method, information can be collected
through research and observation, observation involves
watching the types of behaviors.One other important way is to
conduct surveys and gather data by asking different kinds of
questions. Different kinds of survey’s include
Face-to-Face Survey: This is a simple technique where in the
bakery employees can ask their customers about their purchases
and interests.
Postal and Online Surveys: In this type of survey method,
bakery management can send out questionnaire either through
postal means or online to gather data about some of the key
aspects of purchases and other things which can be used further
for online marketing.
Secondary research is using existing information instead of
gathering new information. Two main sources of secondary
research are,
Internal sources: Data records from bakery’s internal database
can be analyzed carefully to identify existing customers and
their behaviors and their purchases , how often they make
purchases and more. This will help in finding targeted
customers to use for marketing.
External sources : Bakery can use existing published
information, this helps in saving lot of effort and time,
information can be accessed from publications and internet.
Internet makes it very easier to find out useful information
which can be used for marketing. A large number of these
sources can be accessed specifically through the internet by
using specific search terms.

Some of the useful internet publications that can be used for
identifying data for marketing include
Expenditure and Food Survey – This Shows how customers are
spending their money on and how these patterns are changing
over time.
Social Trends – Social Trends brings together economic and
social data from different means and depicts a clear picture of
and how it is covering key areas.
Monthly Digest of Statistics – This gives summary of
information from monthly trends.
Regional Trends – Regional profiles, details of households,
food habits and living standards and so on.
Annual Abstract of Statistics – Details about population
changes, social conditions, production, prices and employment.
Files/Chapter 10.pptx
Collecting Data Using Attitudinal Scales
Kumar: Research Methodology
Chapter 10

Prepared by Stephanie Fleischer
authored by Stephanie Fleischer © SAGE publications Ltd 2014
Topics covered
Attitudinal scales in research
Function of attitudinal scales
Developing attitudinal scales
Types of attitudinal scales
Likert scale
Thurstone scale
Guttman scale
Attitudinal scales and measurement scales
Helps to find out how people feel towards certain issues and
situations (level of satisfaction, agreement, positive/negative
attitude, etc.)
Quantitative research explores types of attitudes, how many
people have a certain attitude and intensity of attitude
Qualitative research explores the spread of attitudes and
establish types of attitudes
Attitude scales are prevalent in quantitative research such as the
Likert scale
Measure of intensity of respondents’ attitudes toward the

various aspects of a situation or issue
Provide techniques to combine the attitude toward different
aspects into on overall indicator
Which aspects of a situation or issue should be included when
seeking to measure an attitude towards an issue or problem?
What procedure should be adopted for combining the different
aspects to obtain an overall picture?
How can one ensure that a scale really is measuring what it is
supposed to measure?
The summated rating scale, also known as the Likert scale;
The equal-appearing interval scale or differential scale, also
known as the Thurstone scale;
The cumulative scale, also known as the Guttman scale.
Likert Scale
Most common attitudinal scale
Measures intensity of attitude toward an issue
Each statement has equal attitudinal value
Measures in categories or on a numerical scale
1, 2 or 3 dimensions of attitudes (e.g. 2 as in positive and
negative)
Scores will be assigned to the attitude scale if calculations are
used for weighting responses

Figure 10.1 An example of a categorical scale
Figure 10.2 An example of a seven point scale
Figure 10.3 An example of a scale with statements reflecting
varying degrees of an attitude
Other scales
Thurstone scale:
Calculates an attitudinal value for each statement
Mean score is recorded for each statement
The mean score is equivalent to the attitudinal value assigned
by a group of judges
Reflects absolute rather than relative attitudes
Guttman scale:
Cumulative scale which is rarely used
Table 10.1 The relationship between attitudinal and

measurement scales
Files/Empathy_13-15 (1) (1).pdf
Empathy 1
Comm 506: Research Method
Youjeong Kim
October 28, 2005
Concept Explication: Empathy (Part I)
The study of why people help others starts from the concept of
'empathy' (e.g.,
Batson & Coke, 1981 ; Eisenberg, 1982). The term, empathy, is
originally from the Greek
word enzpatkeia, which implies an active appreciation of
another person's feeling
experience (Austin, 1967). Ernpathy was mainly explicated in
the field o f social and
cognitive psychology or psychotherapy.
Theoretical definitions
Generally, empathy is defined as the ability to understand and
feel other's

thinking or situation. Webster's I1 New College Dictionary
(1995) defined it as
"identification with and understanding of another's feelings,
situation, and motives".
When people read a story or watch TV, people are often
"emotionally aroused"
partly caused by "the excitement of the story" (Stotland, 1969).
The emotional process is
the result of 'empathy' by identifying a particular character in
the story. Eisenberg and
Strayer ( 1 987) defined the empathy as 'vicarious sharing of
affect' instead of
'identifying'. They described that empathy is "an emotional
response that stems from
another's emotional state or condition and that is congruent with
the other's emotional
state or situation."
Another approach to define 'empathy' is raised by from Rogers
(1 975). He said
that empathy was a "process" and that it involved 'entering the
private perceptual world
of the other and becoming thoroughly at home in it. It involves
being sensitive ... to the
changing felt meaning which flow in this other person."

oob100
Rectangle
Empathy 2
Earlier, in 1949, psychotherapist Theodore Reik already
described i t with four
phrases: Identification ("paying attention to another and
allowing oneself to become
absorbed in contemplation of that person"), Incorporation
("making the other's
experience one's own via internalizing the other"),
Reverberation ("experiencing the
other's experience while simultaneously attending to one's own
cognitive and affective
associations to that experience"), and Detachment ("moving
back from the merged inner
relationship to a position of separate identity, which permits a
response to be made that
reflects both understanding of others as well as separateness
from them").
The attempt to define empathy has been also made in the field
of mass
communication, especially within the test of disposition theory

developed by Zillmann
and Cantor (1972). The theory assumes that viewers hold same
feeling with characters in
terms of empathy (Raney, 2004). In addition, mood management
model of emotional
responding to television by Zillmann (1 988) is explained based
on empathy. In this
theory, empathy is defined as "individual experience of
emotions that are more
appropriate to the observed person's situation than to their own"
(Mares & Cantor, 1992).
Operational definitions
Like many other psychological concept, empathy is an elusive
concept to measure
definitely. The measurement is primarily based on self-
reporting by survey.
Empathy is usually operationalized as "the degree of match or
congruency
between self-report emotion and the emotion of stimulus"
(stimulus person or protagonist
in a given vignette) (e.g., Feshbak & Roe, 1968; Lennon &
Eisengerg, 1987; Strayer,
1987). Batson (1 998) argued that for occurrence of empathy,
attachment to the person in

need should be preceded. He said that "one important cognitive
factor creating
Empathy 3
attachment, and consequently empathy, is the perception of self-
other similarities". To
measure the emotional match with the emotion of stimulus,
FASTE method designed for
measuring affective empathy is employed.
Some researchers approached empathy with behavioral
perspective. Dollard and
Miller (1950) defined i t as "copying the other person's feelings
or responding with
appropriate signs of emotion." They observed subjects' physical
responses while
'empathy' occurs. Murphy ( 1 947) wrote that "his muscles
tighten as he watches the tug
of war; his larynx tires and his heels rise as the soprano strains
upward." (p. 414).
To test empathy aroused by child abuse PSA, Bagozzie and
Moore (1 994)
operationalized empathy with four dimensions developed by
Davis ( 1 980) and Larsen,

Diener, and Cropanzano (1987). The four dimensions are ( 1 )
perspective taking
("tendency to adopt the point of view") (2) compassionlpity
("other-oriented feeling such
as concern") (3) protection motivation toward the victim ("the
desire to protect the person
in need or intervene on one's behalf') and (4) fantasy
elaboration ("the propensity to go
beyond information provided about a person in need to develop
feelings o f identification
and other emotional attachment"). Based on four dimensions,
subjects' response obtained
from open-ended question of "how to feel" were analyzed.
Some researchers attempted to apply the empathy into the
research of online
communication (Preece, 1998; Preece & Ghozati, 1998). They
defined i t as "the overall
feeling conveyed in the messages is mutual understanding and
caring developed from
shared experience". Through analyzing the content of online
communities, Preece and
Ghozati (2000) divided into two messages: empathic messages
and hostile messages.

Commonalities and Distinctions
Empathy 4
Theoretically, the empathy is grouped as explanatory and
descriptive definition.
Whereas some scholars attempted to explain why 'empathy'
occurs, some attempted to
describe emotional status when 'empathy' occurs. Specifically,
Hoffman (1 982) stated
just emotional 'empathy' status, 'vicarious sharing of affects'
while many scholars tried
to provide psychology basis for occurrence of 'empathy' such as
'identification with or
understanding the others' feeling' (authors of Webster
Dictionary), 'excitement of the
story' (Stotland, 1969), and 'emotional response that stems from
or that is congruent with
another's feeling' (Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987).
The alternative definitional distinction in the group can be
made: status and
process of empathy. In particular, Rogers (1975) and Reik
(1949) saw empathy as a
process or emotional transfer.

The operational definitions are largely divided by how empathy
is measured.
Hogan (1969) said that empathy is "an intellectual or
imaginative apprehension of
another's condition or state of mind" and Batson (1998) said
that empathy is occurred
through 'self-other similarity.' Both focused on cognitive aspect
of empathy. The
cognitive aspect based on internal process is invisible and the
measurement is relied on
respondents' self-report. In contrast, of many scholars who
focused on affective aspects
of empathy (e.g., Eisenberg & Strayer 1987), some researchers
developed physical
measurement to assess emotional transfer (Hamilton, 1973;
Lennon, Eisenberg & Carroll,
1986). For example,
watching films. This
Recommendations
researchers reported children's facial
measurement is physically visible.
and gestural responses while

Empathy 5
Theoretically, the concept of empathy was explicated in terms
of subjective and
physiological state of 'emotional arousal.' And operationally,
the measurement of
empathy was primarily relied on respondents' self-reporting of
'how they feel' using
open-ended questions or 7-point Likert scale. In particular,
open-ended questions are very
useful to develop empathic dimensions and items for pretest.
When using 7-point Likert
scale, employing various emotional items are recommended
considering individuals'
varying awareness about their feelings and ability to interpret
(Lacey, 1950).
In addition, for analyzing empathic messages shown in online
communication,
various items such as emoticon (e.g., "*""*" or ":)" for smile, or
"t.tW for upset or cry) or
the double use of fluctuation for emphasizing the emotion (e.g.,
"!!") are recommended to
be included for empathy measurement.

Empathy 6
Concept Explication: Empathy (Part 11)
To measure a person's emotional reaction in terms of sharing or
feeling another
person's internal state (empathic response), usually self-report
using seven-point Likert
scales as well as open-ended questions is employed.
Development of Measures
Self-reports for measuring empathic emotion are obtained by
asking to rate the
degree to which subjects are feeling or experiencing emotional
status with the endpoints
labeled "not at all" and "extremely" on seven-point Likert scale.
The questionnaires
usually contain several adjectives describing emotional
reactions to the stimulus such as
sympathetic, compassionate, alarmed, grieved, upset, tender,
and the like (Batson, 1987).
Often single item is employed to measure empathy. For
example, Vorderer,
Knobloch, and Schramm (2001) showed a movie and then asked

subject to rate on a 5 -
point Likert scale to the following question: "Right now, do you
feel for Stefen (who was
/
the protagonist)?" The measurement using a single item on 5 or
7-point Likert scale (e.g.,
do you feel the situation? Or do you feel the protagonist's
feeling?) is very problematic in
terms of validity. In particular, because this question cannot
measure the match of
emotion between stimulus and response, and cannot capture the
emotional status well, it
has low construct validity. To reduce this problem, some
researchers employed more
items entailing empathic-related adjectives. Moore, Hams, and
Chen (1995) developed
empathic emotional scale. Ln their study, after being exposed to
the advertisement,
subject's emotional status has been measured as three seven-
point unipolar items from 1
"not at all" to 7 "very" in terms of concerned, con~pnssionate,
and sympathetic.
Nevertheless, the emotion itself is so huge and vague that
capture all internal states

Empathy 7
exactly by just adding some more adjectives, and thus it is hard
to reduce the problem of
low construct validity within emotional item measurement.
Attempting to overcome the low construct validity,
nevertheless, has been made
by changing questionnaire to open-ended style by some
researchers. FASTE method used
by Batson (1998) measures empathic emotion by asking children
describe how they feel
after reading short stories or watching visual stimuli depicting a
story. Bagozzi and
Moore (1994) asked subjects to "describe all the feelings" that
they experienced when
they were exposed to child abuse ad. By two judges, the
responses were categorized by
four dimensions: perspective taking (e.g., "I felt the pain as if I
had been struck),
compassiodpity (e.g., "I felt pity for the kid"), protection
motivation toward victim (e.g.,
"I wanted to step between the parent and the child), and fantasy
elaboration (e.g., "the

little boy did not do anything wrong"). This method is also
problematic in terms of
accuracy. Although respondents know what they were feeling
while watching stimulus,
they were not willing to report their true feelings. Some people
may want present
themselves to be more sympathetic and compassionate while
some might want to appear
strong (Batson, 1987). Open-ended questions always have this
kind of response bias that
hurts internal validity. Bagozzie and Moore (1 994) attempted
to reduce internal validity
problem of their measurement. In study 2, based on categorized
four dimensions, they
measured with six empathy items by asking subjects to rate
disagree (1) or agree (7) on
seven-point scale. This kind of measure is called paper-and-
pencil measures which focus
on empathy as a "vicarious emotional response to the perceived
emotional experiences f
others, in particular, the experience to the perceived sharing of
feelings, at least at the
gross affect (pleasant-unpleasant) level" (Bryant, 1987). The
Mehrabian and Epstein

Empathy 8
measure (1972) of empathy is widely used paper-pencil
measures. It consists of 33 items
and subjects are asked to rate each item on interval scale from
+4(very strong agreement)
to -4(very strong disagreement). To be scored on empathic
response, 16 items require
agreement and remaining 17 items require disagreement.
Resulting measures showed
high internal consistency ( r = .79) and 2-week test-retest
reliability for the empathy
measure showed stability (Kalliopuska, 1983 ).
For children, non-verbal methods such as facial, gestural, or
vocal responses are
acceptable to measure empathic emotion (Marcus, 1987).
Although it lowers self-
presentation bias, the ratings are conducted by experimenter
subjectively and thus could
capture the other emotions as well as empathic response. It can
bring discriminant
validity problem. Some researchers employed physiological
(heart rate) indexes

Eisenberg and his colleagues hypothesized that vicariously
induced sadness (empathy)
was correlated with HR deceleration (Eisenberg, Fabes, et al.,
1989; Eisenberg, McCreath,
& Ahn, 1988). Even though it was internally consistent based on
test-retest reliability
coefficients, construct validity is still problematic because
positive emotions induced by
empathy could not be captured by HR change.
Research Question
For adults, controlling for gender and age, what is the
relationship between media
coverage about natural disaster and empathic response and what
is the relationship
between aroused empathic response by media coverage and
decision to help?
After showing news about Katrina and subsequent 2 types of
red-cross Public
Service Ads (emotional vs. rational) promoting donation or
voluntary work for Katrina
victims, subjects are asked to report empathic response.
Empathy 9

Rationale
To measure empathic response by media coverage about
Hurricane Katrina, my
study would be primarily based on the method conducted by
Bagozzie and Moore (1 994).
In the first experiment, they employed open-ended questions by
asking subjects to
describe all feelings while watching a PSA about child abuse
and two coders analyzed i t
within four dimensions (e.g., perspective taking, compassion,
protection motivation,
protection motivation, fantasy elaboration) developed by Davis
(1 980) and Larsen,
Diener, and Cropanzano (1987).
Similarly, my study will use this category except protection
motivation (which is
not relevant to natural disaster) to measure which type o f PSA
(rational o r emotional) will
have more empathic response. For example, subjects will be
given a simple 7-point
Likert scale (e.g., do you feel for the situation or victims?) from
1 "not at all" to 7
"extremely." The question could screen some responses which

do not feel anything after
watching the news and PSA (subjects who mark I "not at all").
All people do not have
empathy after watching news stories about natural disaster
victims. By screening those
responses, descriminant validity problem might not be occurred.
If subjects answer "yes,"
they are asked to answer following questions about empathic
emotion on seven-point
Likert scale (If answer "no," they skip following questions). For
example: For the
question of that "I felt as though I was right there in the ad
experiencing what the victims
were experiencing," subjects are asked to rate how much they
agree from 1 "strongly
disagree" to 7 "strongly agree." Aggregated score obtained from
responses will be the
degree of empathy to the stimulus.
Empathy 10
As I stated above, emotional scale consisted of some items is
hard to capture all
internal states of subjects. Ln particular, when empathy is

operationalized as "the degree
of match or congruency between self-report emotion and the
emotion of stimulus
(Feshbak & Roe, 1968; Lennon & Eisengerg, 1987; Strayer,
1987)," and measured the
empathy in terms of the congruency of emotion, even the
evaluation of stimulus'
emotional status by researchers might not be exact. Given the
fundamental problem of
empathy measurement, to some extent, this measurement could
reduce the problem of the
internal validity.
Empathy 11
References
Astin, H.S. (1967). Assessment of empathic ability by means of
situational test. Journal
Bagozzi, R.P., & Moore, D.J. (1994). Public service
advertisements: Emotions and
empathy guide prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58, 56-
70.
<
Batson, C.D. (1987). Self-report ratings of empathic emotion. In

N.Eisenberg & J.
Strayer (Eds.), Enzpatl7y and its development (pp. 356-360).
New York: Academic
Press.
Batson, C.D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D.T.
Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4'" ed., Vol. 2,
pp. 282-3 15).
New York: McGraw-Hill
Batson, C.D., & Coke, J. (1981). Empathy: A source of
altruistic motivation for helping.
In J. Rushton & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruisn7 and helping
behavior: Social,
persoriality, and developn7ental perspectives (pp. 167-2 1 1 ).
Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bryant, B.K. (1 987). Critique o f comparable questionnaire
methods in use to assess
empathy in children and adults. Ln N.Eisenberg & J. Strayer
(Eds.), E~lzpatl~y and
its developnzeizt (pp. 361-373). New York: Academic Press.
Davis, M.H. ( 1 980). Measuring individual differences in
empathy. JSAS Catalog of

Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 8 5 .
Dollard, J., & Miller, N. (1 950). Personality and
psycl7otl1erapy. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Empathy 12
Eisenberg, N. (Ed.)(1982). The developnzent ofprosocial
bel7avior. New York: Academic
Press.
Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (1 987). Enzpatl~y and its
development. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R.A., Miller, P.A., Fultz, J., Shell, R.,
Mathy, R.M., & Reno, R.R.
(1989). Relation o f sympathy and personal distress to
prosocial behavior: A
multimethod study. Jourrzal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57(1), 55-66.
Eisenberg, N., McCreath, H., & Ahn, R. (1988). Vicarious
emotional responsiveness and
prosocial behavior: Their interrelations in young children.
Personality and Social

Psycl7ology Bulletin, 14, 28-3 1 1.
Feshback, N.D., & Roe, K. (1968). Empathy in six-and seven-
year-olds. Child
Development, 39, 133-1 45.
Hamilton, M.L. (1973). Imitative behavior and expressive-
ability in facial expression of
emotion. Developmental Psychology, 8 , 138.
Hoffman, M.L. (1982). Development of prosocial motivation:
Empathy and guilt. In N.
Eisenberg (Ed.), The developnzer~t ofprosocial behavior, 28 1-3
13.
Hogan, R. (1 969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical
Psyclzology, 33, 307-3 16.
Kalliopuska, M. (1983). Verbal components of emotional
empathy. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 56,487-496.
Lacey, J.J. (1950). Individual differences in somatic response
patterns. Journal of
Coinparative and Physiological P s ~ ~ c l ~ o l o g y , 43, 338-
350.

Empathy 13
Larsen, R.J., Diener, E., Cropanzano, R.S. (1987). Cognitive
operations associated with
individual differences in affect intensity. Journal of Personality
and Social
Ps~~clzology, 53, 767-774.
Lennon, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Gender and age differences
in empathy and
sympathy. In N. Eisenberg & J . Strayer (Eds.), Emnpatl~~)
and its development (pp.
195-217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lennon, R., Eisenberg, N., & Carroll, J. (1986). The relation
between empathy and
prosocial behavior in the preschool years. Journal ofApplied
Developm?zental
P s ~ ~ c h o l o g ) ~ , 7 , 2 19-224.
Levenson, R.W., & Ruef, A.M. (1992). Empathy: A
physiological substrate. Journal of
Per.sonality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 234-246.
Marcus, R.F. (1987). Somatic indices of empathy. In
N.Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.),
Enzpall~y and its developnzent (pp. 374-379). New York:

Academic Press.
Mares, M.L, & Cantor, J. (1992). Elderly viewers' responses to
televised portrayals of
old age: Empathy and mood management versus social
comparison.
Cornmunicafion research, 19, 459-478.
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional
empathy. Journal of
Personality, 40(4), 525-543.
Murphy, G. (1947). Personality: A biosocinl approacl? to
origins arzd structure. New
York: Harper.
Preece, J. (1998). Empathic communities: Reaching out across
the Web. Interactions, 2,
32-43.
Empathy 14
Preece, J., & Ghozati, K. (1 998). In search of empathy online:
A review of 100 online
communities. Proceedings of the 1998 Association for
Infor~nation Systen?
Anzericas Confe?*ence (pp. 92-94). Baltimore, MD: USA.

Preece, J., & Ghozati, K. (2000). Experiencing empathy online.
In R.E. Rice, & J.E. Katz
(Eds.) The internet and health co~nmunication: Experiences and
expectations (pp.
237-258). Sage Publications, Inc.
Raney, A.A. (2004). Expanding disposition theory:
Reconsidering character liking, moral
evaluations, and enjoyment. Co~nrnunication Theory, 14, 348-
369.
Reik, T. (1949). Listening with the third ear: Tlie inner
experience of the psychoanalj~st.
New York: Farrar, Straus.
Rogers, C.R. (1975). The necessary and sufficient conditions of
therapeutic personality
change. Journal of Corzsulting Psychology, 21, 95- 103.
Stotland, E. ( 1 969). Exploratory investigations of empathy. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 27 1-3 14).
New York: Academic
Press.
Strayer, J. (1 987). Affective and cognitive perspectives. In N.
Eisenberg & J. Strayer

(Eds.), Emnpatl~y and its developnzer~t (pp. 21 8-244).
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Webster 's N New College Dictionary (1 995). Boston, New
York: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Zillmann, D. (1 988). Mood management through
communication choices. American
Behavioral Scientist, 31, 327-340.
Empathy 15
Zillmam, D., & Cantor, J. (1972). Directionality of transitory
dominance as a
communication variable affecting humor appreciation. Journal
of Personality and
Social Psycl~ology, 24, 1 9 1 - 198.
Files/Empathy_13-15 (1).pdf
Empathy 1
Youjeong Kim
October 28, 2005

'empathy' (e.g.,
feel other's

affect' instead of
(1 975). He said
oob100
Rectangle
Empathy 2

from them").
of mass
model of emotional
on empathy. In this

concept to measure
congruency
factor creating
Empathy 3

or responding with
responses while
upward." (p. 414).
Moore (1 994)
perspective taking

research of online
Empathy 4

made: status and
is measured.
of empathy. The

developed physical
1986). For example,
Recommendations
Empathy 5
of subjective and
the measurement of

(Lacey, 1950).
communication,
Empathy 6
feeling another

asking to rate the
The questionnaires
example, Vorderer,
/

the advertisement,
and sympathetic.
Empathy 7

story. Bagozzi and
had been struck),
may want present

Empathy 8

vocal responses are
bring discriminant

Research Question
is the relationship
decision to help?
red-cross Public
Empathy 9
Rationale
asking subjects to

(1 980) and Larsen,
1 "not at all" to 7

example: For the
Empathy 10
hard to capture all
emotion of stimulus

internal validity.
Empathy 11
References
70.
<
N.Eisenberg & J.
New York: Academic
Press.
pp. 282-3 15).

behavior: Social,
Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Hill.
Empathy 12

Press.
year-olds. Child

13.
350.
Empathy 13
and Social
Ps~~clzology, 53, 767-774.
in empathy and

between empathy and
Developm?zental
P s ~ ~ c h o l o g ) ~ , 7 , 2 19-224.
Academic Press.
comparison.
empathy. Journal of
Personality, 40(4), 525-543.

York: Harper.
32-43.
Empathy 14
expectations (pp.
369.

L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
New York: Academic
Press.
University Press.
Company.

Empathy 15
dominance as a
of Personality and
Files/Wirth - Empathy Explication.pdf
Richard Wirth
Concept Explication (pt. 1): Empathy
With the increasingly ubiquitous nature of networked computers
and our always-on
society, there is a general societal concern that upcoming
generations are becoming more
narcissistic and less concerned with others, loosely defined as a
lack of empathy. Empathy is
primarily explicated within the fields of psychology and
therapy, with sparse but substantive
research also occurring in neuroscience and aesthetics. As a
psychological concept, empathy

originates from the German Einfühlung, which is described as
the placing of human feelings into
other entities in order to differentiate experiences between
observers and objects (Depew, 2005).
Theoretical Definitions
Early usage of empathy in research literature has it broadly
defined as the capacity for
individuals to take the role of others (Dymond, 1949).
Operating under this ambiguous
explication, researchers have struggled to distinguish between
the concept as an affective state or
a cognitive ability (Jonason & Krause, 2013). Some researchers
have definitively stated that
there are three distinct forms of empathy, with Blair (2005)
classifying not only a cognitive and
affective form of empathy, but a motor form of empathy as well.
In terms of affective state, Stotland (1969) relates the concept
as any vicarious emotional
response to the perceived emotions of another. This verbiage of
the other-oriented emotional
response is common within empathy literature, with the
emotional affect being a direct result of
the comprehension of perceiving what another person is feeling
(Davis; 1983; Batson, 1991).

However, this perspective of empathy as an affective state is
often conflated with feelings of
sympathy – feelings of sorrow or shared remorse on behalf of
another (Clark 2010). Many
leading researchers in the field still fail to clearly establish this
differentiation, as Eisenberg
(2010) defines empathy as an identical or highly similar
affective response to another’s
emotional state, while previously having declared the need for
“separation between self and
other” (Eisenberg & Fables, 1990).
Clark (2010) explicates this conflation of affective and
cognitive empathy within a
therapy context, suggesting that cognitive empathy is a means
of understanding the feelings and
meanings of an individual, in such a way that they can be
accurately conveyed. Clark goes on to
identify four theoretical components to cognitive empathy,
beginning with the concept of Aim,
or the goal of identification of an individual’s emotional state.
This is followed by Appraisal, in
which identification is achieved through a simulated and

transitory sharing of experiences, and
subsequently Apprehension, in which the mental model of
another’s emotions is constructed.
Finally, Agreement represents the ability for an individual to
maintain that separation between
self and other, such that empathetic judgment is not impaired by
sympathy, or affective empathy.
This cognitive approach is summarized by Coplan (2011) as a
process in which an observer is
able to “simulate another’s situated psychological state while
maintaining a clear self-other
differentiation” (p.58).
Operational Definitions
Given the nuanced concept of empathy and the numerous
directions from which it has
been defined, it can be a challenging concept to measure.
Research has primarily measured
empathy through self-report, but newer approaches have
involved a number of psychophysical
tests that have provided novel insights.
Empathy is most commonly operationalized by using emotional
rating methods to
measure the ability for an individual to accurately “transpose

himself into the thinking, feeling,
and acting of others” (Dymond 1949). Feshbach and Roe
(1968) argued that for the
measurement of empathetic ability in children, there must be
congruency between emotion
assessed through self-report measures and the emotion of
testing stimuli. The researchers
exposed children to various audio-visual stimuli and matched
their ability to accurately list the
emotional states present in media content.
In viewing empathy as a measurable construct, some
researchers have attempted to
establish models or multi-dimensional variables of the trait
(Dymond, 1949; Reniers et al. 2011;
Edele et al. 2013). Bagozzie and Moore (1994) developed a four
dimensional model of empathy
as a guide to prosocial behavior in child abuse; namely, the
authors described perspective-taking,
compassion, a protection motivation, and fantasy elaboration as
fundamental to empathizing for
another individual. Jolliffe and Farrington (2006) also included
perspective-taking as a factor in

their measure, but included “intelligence” as a measure of
cognitive empathy ability, and
“impulsivity” as a correlate for anti-social (non-empathetic)
behavior.
Sonnby-Borgström et al. (2003) operationalized the concept of
empathy as the perception
of positive or negative emotional imagery and the resulting
physical reactions, measured through
facial mimicry reactions as represented by electromyographic
activity. This practice of studying
the physicality of empathy extends back to Murphy (1947),
which observed empathy as an act of
mimicry, and physical animation in response to perceived
emotion. Blair (2005) later classified
these findings as motor empathy, which is distinct from both
affective and cognitive empathy.
Distinctions and Commonalities
One of the most fundamental issues in defining empathy within
the extant literature
surrounds the debate of whether or not empathy is a function of
experiencing or purely

perceiving the emotion of others (Chlopan et al. 1985).
Gladkova (2010) takes a psychological
and linguistic approach to separating the concepts of sympathy
and empathy, evidencing a
significant difference in their role in communicating emotion.
Clark (2010) declares that the
conflation of affective and cognitive empathy can lead to issues
in practice for therapists, lending
strong evidence for their separation. Gladstein (1983) describes
the separation between affective
and cognitive empathy as “feeling the same way as another
person” vs. “taking the role of
another person”.
In terms of commonalities, the classifications of empathy types
seem to share certain
characteristics. The four-dimensional model provided by
Bagozzie and Moore (1994) bears a
strong resemblance to that of the factors in therapy-based
empathy given by Clark (2010), in that
there are clear goals or motives to empathy with specific
individuals, as well as a differentiation
between the self and other. Many theoretical and operational
definitions state that for empathy to
take place, one must be able to fully simulate and gain a strong

understanding of another’s
emotional experience. Research has traditionally and
consistently measured both affective and
cognitive empathy as the ability to accurately assess and match
emotional states.
Recommendations for Defining
While theoretically each definition of empathy is saliently
related to the perceived
emotions of another person or object, there is a critical need to
establish operational definitions.
Affective, cognitive, and to motor empathy each have few but
significant differences in their
operationalization, with affective empathy involving shared
emotions, cognitive empathy
focusing on differentiation during perspective-taking, and motor
focusing on behavioral and
physical reactions as a result of identifying another’s emotional
state. My recommendation is that
a specific classification of empathy be chosen for the
appropriate study. As an example, when
measuring empathy in a population from the perspective of
emotional habituation, affective

empathy should be incorporated.
Concept Explication (pt.2): Empathy
Measuring an individual’s empathic ability, emotional
response, and motor behavior each
require unique measures and study environments. One shared
feature among all approaches
however is the presence of self-report using 5- to 7-point Likert
scales in order to gauge self- and
other-related emotional assessment.
Likert-scale items are a common measure within the social
sciences, and are used to get a
measure of how the subjects rate their agreement or feeling of
specific emotions. Typically a
scale with five or seven points, subjects answer on a range from
“Strongly Disagree” to
“Strongly Agree”, or from “Not at All” to “Extremely”.
Measures such as the Questionnaire of
Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE) have subjects give
their own assessment of their
abilities by answering questions such as “I am quick to spot
when someone in a group is feeling
awkward or uncomfortable” (Reiners et al. 2011). Davis (1983)

developed the Interpersonal
Reactivity Index to assess empathetic ability through measuring
empathy as a multi-dimensional
variable consisting of: perspective-taking, fantasy, empathic
concern, and personal distress. This
measure has high validity due to its close-ended questionnaire
design, the dimensions that
properly separate cognitive empathy (perspective-taking) and
affective empathy (personal
distress), and it has been validated with other measures for
concurrent validity.
Feshbach and Roe (1986) presented children with audio and
visual narrative stimuli of
other children, and asked the subjects to share their feelings and
interpretations of the material.
Subscales for cognitive and affective empathy were used to rate
answers. While the assessment
of children for a concept like empathy can be difficult, this
measure has several issues with
validity. Open-ended response questions generally have several
issues that lower internal
validity. In particular, the FASTE suffers from the issue of
response bias, presentation bias, and

the relatively poor ability for participants to accurately report
on their behaviors. It has also been
criticized for poorly validated psychometric measures and
ambiguity in scoring (Delpechitre
2013). This measure lacks in external and construct validity, but
has been shown to have
relatively acceptable concurrent validity for measures using
visual stimuli.
When measuring specific types of empathy, such as motor
empathy, unique measures
such as electromyography machines and eye-tracking software
are employed to gather specific
data. In the case of Sonnby-Borgström et al. (2003),
participants’ facial reactions were tracked at
the automatic (56 ms) reaction level to determine if there were
automatic responses to emotional
stimuli. While psychophysical measures such as this are often
high in reliability, they may lack
in construct and concurrent validity, due to the interpretive
nature of what physical measures are
actually measuring.
Research Question
For American adolescents, controlling for gender, socio-

economic status, and mode of
social media, what is the relationship between social media
usage and cognitive empathic ability,
and what is the relationship between empathy stimulus type and
affective empathetic response to
news media?
After gathering self-report data for social media usage,
American adolescents are
assessed for cognitive empathic ability. In a second study,
participants are asked to report their
affective empathic responses to news coverage presented via
video, web article, captioned
image, and oral communication.
Rationale
To answer the question about how social technology usage
plays a role in the
development of empathy in the upcoming generation (American
adolescents), my study will
employ both cognitive and affective measures. The study will
assess social media usage and
demographic information, and will employ both the
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), as well

as open-ended responses (Davis 1983). Open-ended responses
will be based primarily on the
Feshbach Affective Situations Test of Empathy (FASTE), but
will be adopted to the specific
context of shown media (Feshbach & Roe 1986). In addition to
these two established measures,
Likert-scale items will be developed to assess empathic
perspective-taking for news media items.
Davis (1983) used the IRI to measure empathy traits as they
relate to interpersonal and
social functioning, and found perspective-taking to be
positively related to extraversion and
negatively related to social dysfunction. By assessing
participants using this measure,
conclusions may be drawn as to the prosocial consequences of
extended media usage and their
results on Likert-scale items.
While empathy is a difficult concept to measure due to the
numerous types of empathy
and its relatively inconsistent definitions and operationalization
within the literature, this study
design should help to increase validity. Rather than purely
assessing self-report empathy, the

proposed study will compare results in interpretation across
communication modalities, while
controlling for a number of salient variables. Prior research has
explored the role of digitally
mediated and expressed empathy, and the need for such
assessments (Terry & Cain, 2016). By
properly operationalizing empathy along affective vs. cognitive
lines and using appropriately
validated measures to assess each, the proposed study should
have acceptable levels of validity
in measuring empathy levels in American adolescents.
References
Bagozzi, R., & Moore, D. (1994). Public service
advertisements: Emotions and empathy guide
prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 56–70.
Bennett, J. (1995). Methodological notes on empathy: further
considerations. Advances in
Nursing Science, 18(1), 36–50.
Blair, R. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others:
dissociating forms of empathy through
the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness
and Cognition, 14, 698–

718.
Chlopan, B. E., Marianne, L., Carbonell, J. L., & Hagen, R. L.
(1985). Empathy : Review of
Available Measures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48(3), 635–653.
Clark, A. J. (2010). Empathy and Sympathy : Therapeutic
Distinctions in Counseling. Journal of
Mental Health Counseling, 32(2), 95–101.
Coplan, A. (2011). Will the real empathy please stand up? A
case for a narrow conceptualization.
Southern Journal of Philosophy, 49(SUPPL. 1), 40–65.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-
6962.2011.00056.x
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in
empathy: Evidence for a
multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 44(1), 113–126.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
Decety, J. (2009). Empathy, sympathy and the perception of
pain. Pain, 145(3), 365–366.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2009.08.006
Delpechitre, D. (2013). Review and assessment of past empathy

scales to measure salesperson’s
empathy. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 13,
1–16. Retrieved from
https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/121429.pdf
Depew, D. (2005). Empathy, Psychology, and Aesthetics:
Reflections on a Repair Concept.
Poroi, 4(1), 99–107. http://doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1033
Dymond, R. F. (1949). A scale for the measurement of empathic
ability. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 13(2), 127–133. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0061728
Eisenberg, N., Eggum, N. D., & Di Giunta, L. (2010). Empathy-
Related Responding:
Associations with Prosocial Behavior, Aggression, and
Intergroup Relations. Social Issues
and Policy Review, 4(1), 143–180.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01020.x
Feshbach, N. D., & Roe, K. (1968). Empathy in six- and seve-
year-olds. Child Development, 39,
133–145.
Gladkova, a. (2010). Sympathy, Compassion, and Empathy in
English and Russian: A Linguistic

and Cultural Analysis. Culture & Psychology, 16(2), 267–285.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X10361396
Gladstein, G. a. (1983). Understanding empathy: Integrating
counseling, developmental, and
social psychology perspectives. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 30(4), 467–482.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.30.4.467
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and
validation of the Basic Empathy Scale.
Journal of Adolescence, 29(4), 589–611.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010
Jonason, P. K., & Krause, L. (2013). The emotional deficits
associated with the Dark Triad traits:
Cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and alexithymia.
Personality and Individual
Differences, 55(5), 532–537.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.027
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
Assessment, 93(1), 84–95.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.528484

Sonnby-Borgström, M., Jönsson, P., & Svensson, O. (2003).
Emotional empathy as related to
mimicry reactions at different levels of information processing.
Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 27(1), 3–23. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023608506243
Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory investigations of empathy. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 271–314). New York:
Academic Press.
Terry, C., & Cain, J. (2016). The emerging issue of digital
empathy. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education, 80(4).
http://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe80458
Files/Chapter 10.pptx
Collecting Data Using Attitudinal Scales
Kumar: Research Methodology
Chapter 10
Prepared by Stephanie Fleischer

Topics covered
Likert scale
Thurstone scale
Guttman scale
Helps to find out how people feel towards certain issues and
situations (level of satisfaction, agreement, positive/negative
attitude, etc.)
Quantitative research explores types of attitudes, how many
people have a certain attitude and intensity of attitude
Qualitative research explores the spread of attitudes and
establish types of attitudes
Attitude scales are prevalent in quantitative research such as the
Likert scale
Measure of intensity of respondents’ attitudes toward the
various aspects of a situation or issue
Provide techniques to combine the attitude toward different
aspects into on overall indicator

Which aspects of a situation or issue should be included when
seeking to measure an attitude towards an issue or problem?
What procedure should be adopted for combining the different
aspects to obtain an overall picture?
How can one ensure that a scale really is measuring what it is
supposed to measure?
The summated rating scale, also known as the Likert scale;
The equal-appearing interval scale or differential scale, also
known as the Thurstone scale;
The cumulative scale, also known as the Guttman scale.
Likert Scale
Most common attitudinal scale
Measures intensity of attitude toward an issue
Each statement has equal attitudinal value
Measures in categories or on a numerical scale
1, 2 or 3 dimensions of attitudes (e.g. 2 as in positive and
negative)
Scores will be assigned to the attitude scale if calculations are
used for weighting responses
Figure 10.1 An example of a categorical scale

Figure 10.2 An example of a seven point scale
Figure 10.3 An example of a scale with statements reflecting
varying degrees of an attitude
Other scales
Thurstone scale:
Calculates an attitudinal value for each statement
Mean score is recorded for each statement
The mean score is equivalent to the attitudinal value assigned
by a group of judges
Reflects absolute rather than relative attitudes
Guttman scale:
Cumulative scale which is rarely used
Table 10.1 The relationship between attitudinal and
measurement scales
Files/Empathy_13-15 (1) (1).pdf

Empathy 1
Youjeong Kim
October 28, 2005
'empathy' (e.g.,
feel other's

affect' instead of
(1 975). He said
oob100
Rectangle
Empathy 2

from them").
of mass
model of emotional

on empathy. In this
concept to measure
congruency
factor creating
Empathy 3

or responding with
responses while
upward." (p. 414).
Moore (1 994)
perspective taking

research of online
Empathy 4

made: status and
is measured.

of empathy. The
developed physical
1986). For example,
Recommendations
Empathy 5
of subjective and

the measurement of
(Lacey, 1950).
communication,
Empathy 6

feeling another
asking to rate the
The questionnaires
example, Vorderer,
/

the advertisement,
and sympathetic.
Empathy 7

story. Bagozzi and
had been struck),

may want present
Empathy 8

vocal responses are
bring discriminant

Research Question
is the relationship
decision to help?
red-cross Public
Empathy 9
Rationale

asking subjects to
(1 980) and Larsen,
1 "not at all" to 7

example: For the
Empathy 10
hard to capture all
emotion of stimulus

internal validity.
Empathy 11
References
70.
<
N.Eisenberg & J.
New York: Academic
Press.

pp. 282-3 15).
behavior: Social,
Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Hill.

Empathy 12
Press.
year-olds. Child

13.
350.
Empathy 13

and Social
Ps~~clzology, 53, 767-774.
in empathy and
between empathy and
Developm?zental
P s ~ ~ c h o l o g ) ~ , 7 , 2 19-224.
Academic Press.
comparison.

empathy. Journal of
Personality, 40(4), 525-543.
York: Harper.
32-43.
Empathy 14
expectations (pp.

369.
L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
New York: Academic
Press.
University Press.

Company.
Empathy 15
dominance as a
of Personality and
Files/Empathy_13-15 (1).pdf
Empathy 1
Youjeong Kim
October 28, 2005
'empathy' (e.g.,

feel other's
affect' instead of

(1 975). He said
oob100
Rectangle
Empathy 2

from them").
of mass
model of emotional
on empathy. In this
concept to measure

congruency
factor creating
Empathy 3
or responding with

responses while
upward." (p. 414).
Moore (1 994)
perspective taking

Online Marketing for a Local BakeryTeam MembersB.docx

Online Marketing for a Local BakeryTeam MembersB.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from cherishwinsland

More from cherishwinsland (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Online Marketing for a Local BakeryTeam MembersB.docx