Measuring Empathy in Design: A New Tool for UX Professionals?

Introducing the Empathy in Design Scale (EMPA-D)

Image generated with Ideogram

Empathy is often considered an integral part of user-centred design. However, measuring this skill has posed significant challenges for researchers and practitioners alike. In response to this gap, Drouet et al. (2024) have introduced a new tool: the Empathy in Design Scale (EMPA-D). This article examines the development of the EMPA-D, its theoretical foundations, and its potential implications for UX professionals.

Theoretical Framework and Existing Measures

The concept of empathy in design has evolved significantly since its introduction in the late 1990s. Empathy¹ goes beyond simply feeling for users; it involves a deep understanding of their experiences, needs, and motivations. It's about seeing the world through users' eyes, comprehending their challenges, and using that understanding to inform design decisions.

For UX professionals, empathy could mean:

• Actively listening to users without judgment

• Observing user behaviour in context

• Imagining oneself in the user's situation

• Connecting emotionally with users' experiences

• Translating empathic insights into actionable design solutions

Several key frameworks have shaped our understanding of empathy within design:

Kouprie and Sleeswijk Visser (2009) proposed a four-phase model consisting of Discovery, Immersion, Connection, and Detachment. This framework emphasises the dynamic nature of empathy. In the Discovery phase, designers open themselves to the users' experiences. During Immersion, they delve deeper, trying to feel what users feel. Connection involves resonating emotionally with users, while Detachment allows designers to step back and apply insights creatively.

Hess and Fila (2016) identified four dimensions of empathy in design: cognitive empathy, affective empathy, direct empathy (based on personal experiences), and indirect empathy (based on others' experiences or imagined scenarios). This framework highlights the multifaceted nature of empathy. Cognitive empathy involves understanding users' thoughts, while affective empathy relates to sharing their emotions. Direct empathy draws on personal experiences, and indirect empathy uses imagination or others' accounts to relate to users.

More recently, Smeenk et al. (2019) developed the Empathic Formation Compass, which integrates multiple perspectives a designer can adopt (first-person, second-person, and third-person) and maps them to different information sources and mindsets. This model acknowledges that empathy can come from various sources and emphasises the importance of switching between these viewpoints to gain a comprehensive understanding of the user experience.

While these frameworks provide valuable conceptual understanding, quantitative measurement tools specifically tailored to design contexts have been lacking. Existing empathy scales in psychology, such as the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980), weren't designed for design situations. In engineering education, Rasoal et al. (2012) developed the Empathy in Engineering Scale, but it focuses on cultural empathy rather than user-centred design.

The Empathy in Design Scale (EMPA-D)

The development of the EMPA-D addresses several gaps in existing measures:

1. Design-specific context: Unlike general empathy scales, the EMPA-D is tailored to service design scenarios, making it more relevant for UX professionals.

2. Broad applicability: The EMPA-D is applicable to various roles involved in shaping user experiences, not just designers.

3. Integration of design frameworks: The scale incorporates concepts from design-specific empathy models, bridging theoretical frameworks and practical measurement.

4. Real world validation: The EMPA-D has been validated with service employees, ensuring its relevance and applicability in actual work environments.

Drouet and colleagues employed a rigorous scale development process to create the EMPA-D. Their methodology included a comprehensive literature review and synthesis of existing empathy frameworks, generation of an initial item pool based on established scales and design-specific constructs, expert review for face validity assessment, and cognitive interviews to ensure item comprehension. Once the scale was created the researchers conducted two large-scale validation studies with service employees (n=406 and n=305), followed by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and convergent and discriminant validity testing. The researchers refined the scale between studies, iterating on item wording and testing new items to enhance its psychometric properties.

Key Findings and Scale Structure

The final EMPA-D scale consists of 11 items across three dimensions (full scale can be found at the end of this article):

1. Emotional Interest/Perspective-taking (6 items)

2. Personal Experience (2 items)

3. Self-awareness (3 items)

This three-dimensional structure aligns with but also refines previous conceptual models, offering a more nuanced understanding of empathy in design contexts. Statistical analyses revealed that the scale demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (different items or questions in the scale consistently measure the same thing) and factorial validity (the scale's structure matches existing theory).

In addition to this, EMPA-D scores showed positive correlations with established empathy measures, supporting convergent validity (how closely it is related with other scales that measure the same or similar constructs). Negative correlations with narcissism measures also provided evidence of discriminant validity (ability to distinguish itself from measures of different concepts).

The researchers reported gender differences in empathy in design scores, with women scoring slightly higher on average. This is consistent with prior empathy research. The studies also showed that customer-facing employees scored higher than non-customer-facing employees, suggesting the scale's sensitivity to role-based differences. Finally, empathy scores predicted employees' willingness to modify work routines to enhance user experiences, indicating potential behavioural implications for EMPA-D.

Implications for UX Practice

The EMPA-D scale offers several potential applications for UX professionals:

• Organisational assessment: The scale can provide a baseline measure of empathy toward users across different teams or departments.

• Intervention evaluation: We can use the scale to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of empathy-building activities and our impact.

• Team composition: EMPA-D scores could contribute to discussions about assembling diverse, empathetic project teams.

• Cultural measurement: Tracking empathy levels over time may serve as one indicator of an organisation's progress toward a more user-centric culture.

• Professional development: The scale could potentially support individual reflection and goal-setting around empathy skills.

Limitations and Considerations

Even though this new scale can be a useful tool in creating more user-centric teams and companies, there are several caveats to keep in mind when interpreting and applying EMPA-D. First of all, as a self-report measure, the scale may be susceptible to social desirability bias. This means that participants are likely to respond in a way making them more favourable to others. A way to reduce this bias is making the survey anonymous and avoiding singling out specific respondents.

It’s worth noting that the scale can only assess empathic tendencies rather than observed empathic behaviours. As a result, additional measures and metrics are required to have a complete view of empathy. Finally, even though empathy is important in UX, keep in mind that it is only one component of an effective UX practice.

Conclusion

The EMPA-D scale represents a significant step forward in quantifying empathy within UX and design contexts. It bridges the gap between theoretical frameworks of empathy in design and practical measurement, offering us a new approach to assessing and developing this critical capability.

I will certainly be looking for an opportunity to use the scale in my current role. What about you? Is this something you’re doing currently or have tried in the past? Let me know in the comments!

---

Below, you can find the full scale with scoring instructions:

The Empathy in Design Scale (EMPA-D)

Below is the final 11-item version of the EMPA-D scale. Respondents rate each item on a 7-point scale from 1 (Does not describe me at all) to 7 (Completely describes me).

Emotional Interest/Perspective-taking (EIPT)

- I am interested to learn about users' experiences and needs

- I am curious about users' experiences and needs

- I want to learn about users' experiences and opinions about the service

- As an employee, I try to find out what the users' needs are

- I take action to view things from the users' perspective

- I am actively listening to users' experiences to better understand their perspectives

Personal Experience (PE)

- The experiences and feelings of users resonate with my own

- I understand the users' experiences because I know how it feels

Self-awareness (SA)

- I am aware that my experiences as an employee are different from the ones of users

- I realise that there are similarities and differences between my experiences and the ones of users

- I understand why users perceive things differently than I do as an employee

Instructions: The statements below relate to your professional context. By "users" we mean people/customers who use your organisation's products or services. Please use the 7-point scale to indicate the degree to which these statements accurately describe you. Respond spontaneously: there are no right or wrong answers, only your perspective matters.

1. Planning to discuss empathy in more depth in a future article