Karşıt-Empati Ölçeğinin Türkçe Uyarlaması ve Psikometrik Özellikleri

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada alanyazında henüz yeni bir kavram olan karşıt-empatiyi değerlendiren Karşıt-Empati Ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Yaş aralığı 18-66 olan (34.04±12.66) 209’u (%60,2) kadın 347 kişiden oluşan kolayda ve kartopu örnekleme yöntemiyle ulaşılan toplum örneklemi ile çalışma gerçekleştirilmiştir. Katılımcılara Karşıt-Empati Ölçeği (KEMPÖ), Toronto Empati Ölçeği (TEÖ), Yetişkin Prososyallik Ölçeği (YPÖ), Horney-Coolidge Üç Boyut Envanteri (HCTI) ve Varoluşsal Öfke Ölçeği (VÖÖ) uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Ölçeğin geçerliği için yapılan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda, uyum iyiliği indeks değerlerinin (X2/df=3.21, AGFI=0.89, GFI=0.91, CFI=0,92) kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğu saptanarak orijinal çalışmada önerilen 2 faktörlü modelin doğrulandığı tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca ölçekteki bütün maddelerin faktör yüklerinin .55 ila .81 aralığında değiştiği görülmüştür. Yakınsak geçerlik için gerçekleştirilen korelasyon analizlerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı sonuçlar elde edilmiştir. Aynı zamanda ölçeğin psikiyatrik ya da psikolojik yardım öyküsü olan grupları olmayan gruplardan anlamlı seviyede ayırt edebildiği tespit edilmiştir. Ölçeğin Cronbach Alfa güvenirlik katsayılarının tüm ölçek için .87, başkalarının acısından zevk alma boyutu için .84 ve başkalarının mutluluğundan rahatsız olma alt boyutu için .86 olduğu ve bütün maddelerin madde toplam korelasyonlarının .50’nin üzerinde olduğu saptanmıştır. Test-tekrar test korelasyon katsayılarının ise .71 ila .86 arasında olduğu görülmüştür. Sonuç: Yapılan bütün analizlerden elde edilen sonuçlar Karşıt-Empati Ölçeği’nin güçlü psikometrik özelliklere sahip geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğunu, Türk kültüründe yapılan araştırmalarda ve klinik ortamlarda kullanılabilecek bir ölçüm aracı olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karşıt empati
• geçerlik
• güvenirlik
• uyarlama

Turkish Adaptation of Counter-Empathy Scale and its Psychometric Properties

Öz

Objective: This study aims to adapt the Counter-Empathy Scale, which assesses counter-empathy, a new concept in the literature, to Turkish and to examine its psychometric properties. Method: The study was conducted with a community sample of 347 people, 209 (60.2%) of whom were women, aged 18-66 (34.04±12.66), reached through convenience and snowball sampling methods. Counter-Empathy Scale (CES), Toronto Empathy Scale (TES), Adult Prosocialness Scale (APS), Horney-Coolidge Tridimensional Inventory (HCTI), and Existential Anger Scale (EAS) were applied to the participants. Results: As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis conducted for the validity of the scale, it was determined that the goodness of fit index values (X2/df=3.21, AGFI=0.89, GFI=0.91, CFI=0.92) were at an acceptable level, and the 2-factor model proposed in the original study was confirmed. In addition, it was observed that the factor loadings of all items in the scale varied between .55 and .81. Statistically significant results were obtained in the correlation analyses conducted for convergent validity. It was also determined that the scale could distinguish groups with a history of psychiatric or psychological help from groups without at a significant level. It was determined that the Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficients of the scale were .87 for the entire scale, .84 for the dimension of taking pleasure in others’ pain, and .86 for the sub-dimension of feeling annoyed with others’ happiness. The item-total correlations of all items were above .50. It was observed that the test-retest correlation coefficients were between .71 and .86. Conclusion: The results obtained from all analyses showed that the Counter-Empathy Scale is a valid and reliable scale with strong psychometric properties and is a measurement tool that can be used in research conducted in Turkish culture and clinical settings.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Counter-Empathy
• validity
• reliability
• adaptation

Kaynakça

1. Bağcı B, Öztürk-Samur A (2016) Çocuk ve yetişkin prososyallik ölçeklerinin geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 17:59-79.
2. Baren A (2017) In why some take pleasure ın other people’s pain: the role of attachment, competition, and cooperation on Schadenfreude. (Doctoral Dissertation). New York, The City University of New York.
3. Batson CD (2009) These things called empathy: eight related but distinct phenomena. In The Social Neuroscience of Empathy (Eds J Decety, W Ickes): 3–15. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
4. Batson CD (2018) A Scientific Search For Altruism: Do We Only Care About Ourselves?. New York, Oxford University Press.
5. Bilge Y, Bilge Y (2018) Horney'in nevrotik kişilik tiplerinin ölçümü: Horney-Coolidge üç boyut envanteri (HCTI) Türkçe formunun psikometrik özellikleri. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13:263-284.
6. Bonett DG, Wright TA (2015) Cronbach's alpha reliability: Interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. J Organ Behav, 36:3-15.
7. Bošnjaković J, Radionov T (2018) Empathy: Concepts, theories and neuroscientific basis. Alcoholism and Psychiatry Research, 54:123-150.
8. Büyüköztürk Ş (2002) Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara, Pegem Akademi.

9. Caprara GV, Steca PZA, Capanna C (2005) A new scale for measuring adults’ prosocialness. Eur J Psychol Assess, 21:77-89.
10. Cikara M, Bruneau E, Van Bavel JJ, Saxe R (2014) Their pain gives us pleasure: How intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses. J Exp Soc Psychol, 55:110–125.
11. Coolidge FL (2005) Horney-Coolidge Tridimensional Inventory: Manual. Colorado Springs, CO: Author.
12. Dasborough M, Harvey P (2017) “Schadenfreude: the (not so) secret joy of another's misfortune”. J Bus Ethics, 141:693-707.
13. Deniz BN (2016). Varoluşsal Öfke Ölçeği geliştirme çalışması (Yüksek lisans tezi). İstanbul, İstanbul Arel Üniversitesi.
14. Dryburgh NSJ, Vachon DD (2019) Relating sex differences in aggression to three forms of empathy. Pers Individ Dif, 151:109526.
15. Eisenberg N, Eggum ND, Di Giunta L (2010) Empathy-related responding: associations with prosocial behavior, aggression, and ıntergroup relations. Soc Issues Policy Rev 4:143–180.
16. Eisenberg N (2000) Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annu Rev Psychol, 51:665–697.
17. Eisenberg N, Fabes RA (1998) Prosocial development. In Handbook of Child Psychology (Ed. W. Damon):701-708, New York, Wiley.
18. Feather NT (2006) Deservingness and emotions: Applying the structural model of deservingness to the analysis of affective reactions to outcomes. Eur J Soc Psychol, 17:38–73.
19. Feldman Hall O, Dalgleish T, Evans D, Mobbs D (2015) Empathic concern drives costly altruism. Neuroimage, 105:347-356.
20. Horney K (1945) Our Inner Conflicts. NewYork, WW Norton.
21. Hornik J, Rachamim M, Satchi RS, Grossman O (2021) A dark side of human behavior: Development of a malicious sentiments scale to others success or failure. Comput Hum Behav Rep, 4:100112.
22. Hudson SKTJ, Cikara M, Sidanius J (2019) Preference for hierarchy is associated with reduced empathy and increased counter-empathy towards others, especially out-group targets. J Exp Soc Psychol, 85:103871.
23. Jie J, Wang Y (2023) Development and validation of the Counter-Empathy Scale. Psychol Rep, 126:2078-2095.
24. Kline RB (2000) Beyond Significance Testing: Reforming Data Analysis Methods in Behavioural Research. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association.
25. Kline RB (2013) Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.In Applied Quantitative Analysis in The Social Sciences ((Ed. Y Petscher, C Schatsschneider):171- 207. New York, Routledge.
26. Leach CW, Spears R, Branscombe NR, Doosje B (2003) Malicious pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group. J Pers Soc Psychol, 84:932–943.
27. Markus HR, Kitayama S (1991) Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev, 98:224–253.
28. Morelli SA, Lieberman MD, Zaki J (2015). The emerging study of positive empathy. Soc Personal Psychol Compass, 9:57-68.
29. Ouwerkerk JW, van Dijk WW, Vonkeman CC, Spears R (2018) When we enjoy bad news about other groups: A social identity approach to out-group schadenfreude. Group Process Intergr Relat, 21:214–232.
30. Preece DA, Petrova K, Mehta A, Gross JJ (2023) The emotion regulation questionnaire-short form (ERQ-S): A 6-item measure of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. J Affect Disord, 340:855-861.
31. Preece D, Becerra R, Robinson K, Dandy J, Allan A (2018) The psychometric assessment of alexithymia: Development and validation of the Perth alexithymia questionnaire. Pers Individ Dif, 132:32-44.
32. Rea L, Parker R (1992) Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide. San Fransisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
33. Reniers RL, Corcoran R, Drake R, Shryane NM, Völlm BA (2011) The QCAE: A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. J Pers Assess, 93:84-95.
34. Rodriguez-Gomez P, Martin-Loeches M, Colmenares F, Romero Ferreiro MV, Moreno EM (2020) He had it comin: ERPs reveal a facilitation for the processing of misfortunes to antisocial characters. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci, 20:356–370.
35. Ruppel C, Einwiller S (2021) Pleasant hostility: Disidentified consumers' emotional and behavioral reactions to a brand crisis. J Consum Behav, 20:186-200.
36. Singer T, Seymour B, O'Doherty JP, Stephan KE, Dolan RJ, Frith CD (2006) Empatice neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature, 439:466-469.
37. Smith RH, van Dijk WW (2018) Schadenfreude and gluckschmerz. Emot Rev, 10:293-304.
38. Smith RH, Powell CA, Combs DJ, Schurtz DR (2009) Exploring the when and why of schadenfreude. Soc Personal Psychol Compass, 3:530-546.
39. Spreng RN, Kinnon CM, Mar RA, Levine B (2009) The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. J Pers Assess, 91:62-71.
40. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2015). The Use of Multivariate Statistics. (Çeviri Ed. M Baloglu), 6. Baskı, Ankara, Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
41. Takahashi H, Kato M, Matsuura M, Mobbs D, Suhara T, Okubo Y (2009) When your gain is my pain and your pain is my gain: neural correlates of envy and schadenfreude. Science, 323:937-939.
42. Totan T, Dogan T, Sapmaz F (2012) The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Evaluation of psychometric properties among Turkish university students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 46:179-198.
43. Vachon DD, Lynam DR (2016) Fixing the problem with empathy. Assessment, 23:135-149.
44. Vanman EJ (2016) The role of empathy in intergroup relations. Curr Opın Psychol, 11:59-63.
45. Wakefield R, Wakefield K (2023) How intergroup counter-empathy drives media consumption and engagement. Internet Research, 34:1602-1628
46. Winter K, Spengler S, Bermpohl F, Singer T, Kanske P (2017) Social cognition in aggressive offenders: impaired empathy, but intact theory of mind. Sci Rep, 7:670-982.
47. Yamada M, Lamm C, Decety J (2011) “Pleasing frowns, disappointing smiles: an ERP investigation of counter empathy”. Emotion, 11:1336-1345.
48. Yu M, Li X, Lu J, Wang S, Zhang L, Ge Q (2023) Empathy or counter-empathy? the victims’ empathic response toward offenders depends on their relationships and transgression severity. Psychol Res Behav Manag, 16:1355-1363.