Story Telling Essay, Research Paper

The present study examined affective and cognitive empathy in preschool

children. Seventeen children, ages three to five years, were given The Young

Children’s Empathy Measure to determine their understanding of empathy.

Participants were then read a children’s story and given the empathy measure

again, to see if they expressed more empathy after hearing about a sympathetic

protagonist. A second baseline score was obtained one week after the story was

administered. On measures of cognitive anger, mean scores increased

significantly after the story was heard. Other scores increased after hearing

the story, indicating a trend that storytelling is an effective method of

increasing expressions of empathy. Affective empathy is defined as being able to

know about and understand another person’s feelings without having experienced

the same situation (Feshbach, 1975). Children as young as three years of age

have been shown to exhibit appropriate empathy toward others and to demonstrate

correct understanding of others’ emotions (Gove & Keating, 1979; Poresky,

1990). Although young children can correctly express empathy toward others,

empathic abilities do appear to increase as one grows older and is able to view

the world in a less egocentric manner (Piaget, 1966). Numerous studies have

illustrated a strong positive correlation between age and ability to empathize.

Children between five and six years of age show many more appropriate responses

on empathy measures than children closer to three years of age (Gove &

Keating, 1979; Poresky, 1990). This trend is not exclusive to the earliest years

of development. Bryant (1982) administered a pencil and paper empathy scale to

first, fourth, and seventh graders and found that seventh graders were more

empathetic than the other two groups. Olweus and Endresen (1998) conducted a

two-year longitudinal study of 13 to 16 year olds and found a steady increase in

empathy as they aged. Higher levels of empathy in children have also been

correlated with the development of many positive behaviors at all ages. Seja and

Russ (1999) discovered a strong correlation between high levels of fantasy play

and empathy in first and second graders. This trend indicates that being able to

vicariously understand the emotions of others is related to creativity and

imagination. The ability to empathize is also correlated with increased

prosocial behavior and emotional expressiveness and insight (Roberts &

Strayer, 1996). Empathy also appears to increase a child’s comfort level and

openness around other people, and decreases the physical distance they place

between themselves and others (Strayer & Roberts, 1997). Creativity,

imagination, prosocial behavior, emotional expressiveness and insight, and

increased personal openness are certainly positive behaviors to encourage in

young children, as is empathy itself. Kalliopuska and Tiitinen (1991) developed

two programs for nurturing empathy in six and seven year old children over a 4

month period. One program emphasized empathic development through music,

combined with physical activity and art. The students learned songs about caring

for animals and friendship. The other activities included songs and active

games, sculpting clay images of classmates and reflecting their emotions, and

playing games about consoling others. In the second program, empathy was

developed using drama and stories. Children played the roles of teachers and

students enacting an animal’s first day at school. Students also used puppets to

act out stories about making friends, and later discussed the stories and the

emotions of their characters. Both programs were highly effective in teaching

empathy; the children in the test groups showed significant increases in empathy

and prosociability after the 4-month program relative to children in the control

group. In the condition emphasizing stories and drama, children showed an even

greater increase in these behaviors. These results indicate that empathy can be

consciously taught, and that utilizing drama and stories, where children can

take on and see and hear the role of another, is a very effective method of

teaching empathic behavior. There is further evidence to indicate that the use

of stories is an effective way of teaching empathy to young children. Kagan and

Knudson (1982) conducted a study in which five to seven year olds were played

tapes of adults involved in happy, angry, anxious, and sad interactions. The

same participants were also told stories about children experiencing the same

four emotions. Children showed significantly higher levels of affective empathy

toward the children in stories than the adults on tape. This lends further

support to the idea that children respond more empathetically to characters in

stories than in other media. The results also suggest that children are more

empathetic to other children than toward adults, possibly because it is easier

to identify with the feelings of a peer whose emotions they are more likely to

share. Children also showed more empathy toward protagonists who experienced

misfortune than they did toward those in more everyday circumstances (Strayer

& Roberts, 1997). The purpose of the present study was to measure levels of

empathy in preschool-aged children when storytelling was incorporated, and to

compare these levels to empathy exhibited when storytelling was not used. Where

previous research used stories as an integral part of empathy measures, in the

current study storytelling was not directly involved in the empathy measure.

Because most young children are simply read stories and not consciously taught

empathy along with them, this seemed a more realistic model for testing the

effectiveness of storytelling on a child’s affective empathy. Based on previous

research, it was hypothesized that children would exhibit higher levels of

empathy after hearing a story with a sympathetic, school-aged protagonist than

when simply asked questions from an empathy measure. Method Participants

Participants were 17 children between three and five years of age (12 boys and 5

girls, mean age 4 years, 5 months). Participants were obtained through a

preschool affiliated with Earlham College, a local community center, and through

contacting faculty, staff, and community members by word of mouth. All parents

and guardians were told all details of the study in a letter in advance, and all

children participated with their parent’s knowledge and written consent. Parents

were provided with the results at the conclusion of the experiment. Materials

Participants were read a picture book, Hooway for Wodney Wat, (Lester, 1999).

The children were also given the Young Children’s Empathy Measure (Appendix A),

developed by Robert Poresky (1990). The Young Children’s Empathy Measure (YCEM)

consisted of four verbally presented vignettes, each designed to elicit one of

four emotions: sadness, fear, anger and happiness. The children were then asked

two questions after each vignette. "How does the child feel?" was used

to measure each child’s cognitive perspective, and "How do you feel about

this?" was used to measure each child’s affective perspective. Procedure

The children were each visited individually three times by the experimenter.

Visits were conducted either in the child’s preschool or home, and the same

location was used in each session. In the first session, the YCEM was

administered and answers were recorded, to establish a baseline empathy score

for each child. The second session took place on a different day, and the

experimenter read the story to the child. Immediately afterward, the YCEM was

administered a second time, and a second score was recorded. The story was not

discussed in relation to the YCEM. The third session took place 1 week after the

second, to assess whether there would be any long-term effects of the story on

empathy. The story was not mentioned by the experimenter, and the YCEM was

administered a third time, and a third score was recorded. Results Mean empathy

scores for baseline, immediate, and delayed test conditions are shown in Table

1. Higher means indicate more appropriate expressions of empathy. One-way

repeated measure ANOVAS were used to analyze the differences between the

different experimental conditions for each vignette. For all items, means were

higher for cognitive than for affective empathy. Storytelling produced a

significant effect in cognitive anger over the three conditions (F (df 2,32) =

4.216, p * .05). Post hoc paired t-tests (alpha set at .017 according to

Bonferroni procedure) revealed a significant increase in empathy scores from the

baseline (M = 3.0588, SD = .5557) to the immediate test condition (M = 3.4706,

SD = .5145, p * .017). The same test also revealed marginal significance in the

change of mean scores from the story condition to the second baseline test (M =

3.1765, SD = .3930, p = .056). These results indicate that storytelling did

increase the empathy expressed by participants. No significant changes in mean

scores were found in the remaining seven questionnaire items, although an

interesting trend was revealed. There appeared to be a further effect of

storytelling for several more questionnaire items aside from affective anger.

For cognitive sadness, affective sadness, and affective fear, mean scores

increased from the baseline to the immediate condition, although not

significantly (Table 1). These increased means indicate a definite trend of more

appropriate expressions of empathy when storytelling is employed. In three of

the eight questionnaire measures, cognitive fear, as well as both affective and

cognitive happiness, mean scores decreased from the baseline to the immediate

condition, although not significantly (Table 1). This trend is interesting

because it indicates a possible negative effect of storytelling. For the

remaining item, affective anger, means remained the same from the baseline to

the immediate condition. No effects of age or sex were found. Discussion The

hypothesis in this study was not strongly supported. In one half of the

questionnaire items, scores increased as an effect of storytelling, one

significantly. In three of the four remaining items, scores dropped from the

baseline to the story condition. It is difficult to determine if these trends

indicate whether or not storytelling has an effect on children’s empathy, and

whether it is positive or negative. There are several possible explanations for

a decrease in empathy scores after hearing a story. The testing conditions were

not always the most appropriate for reading to a child. At times, the test was

administered in a large room with several other children, who often interrupted

and asked questions about what was taking place. This might have increased the

participant’s distractability or reduced the attention span, which in turn could

reduce the impact and effectiveness of storytelling. A more ideal testing

environment would be one that is quiet and the full attention of the

experimenter and the child can be given to the story being read and the test

being administered. When working with preschool aged participants, it is also

important to note that their logic is not always the same as that of an adult,

and that it is quite variable. When asked, "how does a child who just lost

its best friend feel?", a young child may respond, "like he couldn’t

go." This answer might very well make perfect sense to the child, but it

becomes difficult for the experimenter to determine what sort of emotion this

is, and how it might be coded for data analysis. During the next session,

however, the same child may be thinking in a different way and give the response

that is considered most appropriate, "sad." In the mind of the child,

however, these two seemingly different answers may mean exactly the same

emotion. The variability in logic and verbal expression of young children can

thus greatly effect the responses given on a questionnaire. In the present

study, it was interesting to examine the children’s understanding of affective

versus cognitive empathy. Participants consistently demonstrated a better

understanding of what another child’s emotion would be than what their own would

be in response to the other child’s situation. The question "how does this

child feel?" leaves much less room for interpretation that the question,

"how do you feel about that?" It is possible that the latter could be

interpreted as, "how do you feel about being in that situation?" or

"how do you feel about the child’s involvement in that situation?" If

interpreted the first way, the child must simply put him or herself in a

situation which he or she has most likely experienced, which is much more

concrete, and easier to do at this young age. The question becomes more

difficult when interpret the second way, which requires the child to relate to

an imaginary child in an imaginary situation. Another interesting trend was

which emotions appeared to be best understood. Children consistently mistook

anger for sadness, in response to the vignette, "a child really wants to go

out but is not allowed." The change in means from the baseline to the story

was significant, but mean scores were generally lower for anger than for

sadness, fear, and happiness. This indicates that young children are less aware

of anger than other basic emotions, that it is more difficult for them to

articulate, or possibly that they equate it with sadness. Children were most

likely to correctly identify sadness and happiness consistently, which possibly

indicates that they are more aware of these emotions, and are better able to

verbalize them. There was an indication that hearing a story with a sympathetic

protagonist does actually lead a child to express more empathy. If administered

to a larger sample in a more consistent and appropriate environment, it is quite

possible a significant effect of storytelling could be found. In the present

study, no attempt was made to consciously emphasize and teach empathy along with

storytelling. In future research, storytelling could be proven more effective

when combined with a deliberate teaching of empathy, which has also been shown

to be highly effective. Future research could also examine the effects of

different types of storybooks, with different types of characters and

situations, and how this might change a young child’s expressions of empathy

toward others. References Bryant, B. (1982). An index of empathy for children

and adolescents. Child Development, 53, 413-425. Feshbach, N. D. (1975). Empathy

in children: some theoretical and empirical considerations. Counseling

Psychologist, 5, 25-30. Gove, F., & Keating, D. (1979). Empathic role-taking

precursors. Developmental Psychology, 15(6), 594-600. Kagan, S., & Knudson,

K. (1982). Relationship of empathy and affective role-taking in young children.

The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 141, 149-150. Kalliopuska, M., & Tiitinen,

U. (1991). Influence of two developmental programmes on the empathy and

prosociability of preschool children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 323-328.

Lester, H. (1999). Hooway for wodney wat. United States: Houghton Mifflin.

Olweus, D., & Endresen, I. (1998). The importance of sex-of-stimulus object:

age trends and sex differences in empathic responsiveness. Social Development,

7(3), 370-388). Piaget, J. (1966). Psychology of intelligence. Totowa, N. J.:

Littlefield, Adams. Poresky, R. (1990). The young children’s empathy measure:

reliability, validity and effects of companion animal bonding. Psychological

Reports, 66, 931-936. Roberts, W., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy, emotional

expressiveness, and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67, 449-470. Seja,

A., & Russ, S. (1999). Children’s fantasy play and emotional understanding.

Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28(2), 269-277. Strayer, J., &

Roberts, W. (1997). Children’s personal distance and their empathy: indices of

interpersonal closeness. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20(3),

485- 503. Appendix A The Young Children’s Empathy Measure Robert H. Poresky 1.

Sadness: "A child has just lost its best friend." How does this child

feel? How do you feel about this? 2. Fear: "A child is being chased by a

big, nasty monster." How does this child feel? How do you feel about this?

3. Anger: "A child really wants to go out but is not allowed." How

does this child feel? How do you feel about this? 4. Happiness: "A child is

going to its most favorite park to play." How does this child feel? How do

you feel about this? Scoring: 4 = exact match to intended emotion 3 = similar

emotion 2 = some emotion 1 = nonemotional response 0 = no emotion