Cultural empathy in intercultural interactions: the development and validation of the intercultural empathy index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on discussions of cultural empathy in intercultural communication and counselling and multicultural psychology, this paper presents a model and a measure of cultural empathy suited for a broad range intercultural interactions – the Intercultural Empathy Index (IEI). We examined the IEI’s psychometric properties via two studies involving approximately 2000 undergraduate students at a western Canadian university. Reflecting the cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions of empathy, the IEI includes subscales that assess (1) one’s awareness of the cultural similarities and differences that arise during cross-cultural interactions (Cross-Cultural Awareness), (2) the degree to which one could take the perspective of a person from a different culture (Ease of Perspective-taking), (3) the extent to which one could identify with the emotions of other cultural groups (Empathic Feelings), and (4) the extent to which one behaves empathically toward people from other cultures (Empathic Expressions). The findings of confirmatory factor and correlational analyses provided evidence on the reliability and validity of the IEI. The findings’ implications in regards to the role of cultural empathy in positive intercultural interactions and relations 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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".