Empathy, Resilience, and Gratitude - Does Gender Make a Difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Past research shows most women report higher levels of empathy and gratitude than men. Although studies show relations among resilience, gratitude, and empathy, little is known on the influence of gender on the links among. The present study examined the individual differences and relations among adults’ levels of empathy, gratitude, and resilience, particularly how gender influences such relations. Secondly the mediation role of resilience was tested on the associations between empathy and gratitude. Participants were 214 Polish (104 women) self-identified adults, aged from 18 to 55 years old (M = 28.29 years, SD = 11.19), who completed online self-report measures of empathy (QCAE scale), gratitude (GRAT scale), and resilience (SPP-25 scale). The cross-sectional study was used to get the data. The results show that females scored higher in empathy and gratitude than males, but males reported higher levels of resilience than females. Openness to new life experiences (resilience dimension) emerged as the strongest predictor for gratitude in both groups. Resilience also served as a mediator between empathy and gratitude and this differed according to self-identified gender. Implications for gendered developmental research in positive psychology are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".