Are Empathic People Better Adjusted? A Test of Competing Models of Empathic Accuracy and Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Facets of Adjustment Using Self- and Peer Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are individuals adept at perceiving others' emotions optimally adjusted? We extend past research by conducting a high-powered preregistered study that comprehensively tests five theoretical models of empathic accuracy (i.e., emotion-recognition ability) and self-views and intra- and interpersonal facets of adjustment in a sample of 1,126 undergraduate students from Canada and 2,205 informants. We obtained both self-reports and peer-reports of adjustment and controlled for cognitive abilities as a potential confounding variable. Empathic accuracy (but not self-views of that ability) was positively related to relationship satisfaction as rated by both participants and informants. Self-views about empathic accuracy (but not actual empathic accuracy) were positively related to life satisfaction as rated by both participants and informants. All associations held when we controlled for cognitive abilities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".