Psychology distinguishes two forms of empathy that don't always go together:
- Cognitive empathy: understanding what another person thinks, wants and worries about.
- Affective empathy: feeling, in part, what that person feels.
You can have a lot of one and little of the other, and the difference matters: in negotiation, getting inside the other person's head helps you reach better deals, while feeling with them helps less and can even reduce what you get (Galinsky and colleagues, 2008).
16 statements, about 2 minutes. The result places you on a two-axis map, with a breakdown of four facets.
All possible results
Complete empathy
You understand what the other person thinks and you also feel it. You read people well and you care about how they come out of a conversation with you.
See the detail
What this result describes
You score high on both axes: you pick up on intentions and moods, and they affect you. It is the combination people usually describe as "someone who really listens".
How it usually shows when negotiating
- You quickly spot what really matters to the other side.
- You build trust easily.
- You find it hard to apply pressure when you see the other person is uncomfortable.
"Understanding the other person is an advantage. Feeling with them, without losing sight of your own interests, is a balancing act."
The nuance
In the experiments by Galinsky and colleagues (2008), the advantage in negotiation came from perspective taking, not from emotional empathy. When both are high, the risk described is that the affective side pushes you to concede in order to ease the other person's discomfort. Your facet breakdown shows which of the two pulls harder.
Strategic empathy
You understand very well what the other person thinks and wants, without catching what they feel. You read the table with a cool head.
See the detail
What this result describes
You score high on cognitive empathy and lower on affective empathy: you can get inside the other person's head without their mood carrying you along.
How it usually shows when negotiating
- You anticipate objections and arguments accurately.
- You stay calm when the other side gets worked up.
- You keep what you feel well apart from what you decide.
"Knowing what the other person needs is half of any agreement."
What the research says
This is the profile that best fits the findings of Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin and White (2008): getting inside the other side's head was associated with better deals and more creative solutions. Psychologist Paul Bloom (2016) argues for something similar outside negotiation: a "rational compassion" that understands without being swept along.
The nuance
Cognitive empathy is neutral: it can serve cooperation just as well as manipulation. And for the other side, feeling understood without sensing any warmth can come across as cold. The tone in which you show what you understand changes a great deal how it is received.
Intense empathy
You feel what others feel intensely, sometimes before you understand why. You easily absorb the mood around you.
See the detail
What this result describes
You score high on affective empathy and lower on cognitive empathy: the emotional state of the people around you reaches you quickly and strongly, even if you're not always clear about what is causing it.
How it usually shows when negotiating
- You notice right away when the atmosphere turns tense.
- The other person's tension becomes your tension.
- You tend to give ground so the conversation feels right again.
"Feeling with the other person connects you. Understanding what they feel and why is what lets you decide."
What the research says
Hatfield, Cacioppo and Rapson (1994) described emotional contagion as an automatic tendency to mimic and synchronize expressions, postures and voices, which ends up leading people to feel the same thing. In negotiation, Galinsky and colleagues (2008) observed that focusing on what the other side feels did not improve the deal, and in some tasks reduced what people obtained for themselves.
Reserved empathy
You neither get much inside other people's heads nor catch what they feel. You keep a certain distance in your relationships.
See the detail
What this result describes
You score below the midpoint on both axes. This does not mean a lack of values or affection: empathy has a lot to do with habit and context, and some people reserve it for their closest circle.
How it usually shows when negotiating
- You focus on the facts and on your goals.
- Other people's emotions rarely distract you.
- Sometimes a reaction from the other side catches you off guard.
"Distance protects you. It can also leave out useful information."
What the research says
Davis (1983) showed that empathy is not a single trait but several. In negotiation, what matters most is perspective taking (Galinsky and colleagues, 2008), and in their experiments a brief instruction was enough to activate it. A low score describes a habit at this moment, not a fixed limit.
Indicative result. It describes tendencies based on what you answered today, not a fixed trait or a closed label. It is not a diagnosis.
How this test was built
This test measures two dimensions of empathy : cognitive (understanding what another person thinks and feels) and affective (feeling with the other person), each with two facets.
This result is not a clinical diagnosis.
It is a self-report : it measures how you see yourself, and the empathy other people actually perceive in you may be different.
See the full methodology
What it measures
This test measures two dimensions of empathy: cognitive (understanding what another person thinks and feels) and affective (feeling with the other person), each with two facets.
What model it uses
It is based on the multidimensional approach of Mark Davis (1980, 1983), whose Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) separates perspective taking from empathic concern, and on the distinction between cognitive and affective empathy supported by neuropsychological studies such as that of Shamay-Tsoory and colleagues (2009). The emotional contagion facet follows the work of Hatfield, Cacioppo and Rapson (1994).
Where that model comes from
The link with negotiation comes from Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin and White (2008): in their experiments, people who got inside the other side's head reached better deals and found more creative solutions, while those who focused on feeling what the other side felt did not improve, and in some tasks obtained less for themselves.
How the result is calculated
There are 16 statements answered on a scale of 1 to 5: eight on cognitive empathy and eight on affective empathy. Each axis is converted into a score from 0 to 100. The quadrant of the map you land in (above or below 50 on each axis) gives your profile. The breakdown shows the average for each facet.
What your result means
The result describes how you combine understanding and feeling when you relate to other people. No quadrant is better than another: each combination has advantages and costs depending on the situation.
What it does NOT mean
This result is not a clinical diagnosis. A low score does not indicate any disorder or a lack of values, and a high one does not guarantee treating others well. It is not a substitute for an assessment by a professional.
Limitations
It is a self-report: it measures how you see yourself, and the empathy other people actually perceive in you may be different. All the statements are worded in the same direction, which makes answering easier but can slightly inflate the scores of people who tend to agree. It is not Davis's IRI: the statements are original and written for a general audience, without psychometric validation.
Academic references
- Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
- Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126.
- Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional Contagion. Cambridge University Press.
- Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378-384.
- Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Aharon-Peretz, J., & Perry, D. (2009). Two systems for empathy: A double dissociation between emotional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal gyrus versus ventromedial prefrontal lesions. Brain, 132(3), 617-627.
- Bloom, P. (2016). Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. Ecco.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between cognitive and affective empathy?
Cognitive empathy is understanding what another person thinks, wants or feels. Affective empathy is feeling, in part, the same as they do. Studies of patients with brain lesions (Shamay-Tsoory and colleagues, 2009) show that the two can fail separately, which points to two distinct systems.
How many types of empathy are there?
It depends on the model. The most widely used division is between cognitive and affective empathy. Mark Davis's IRI distinguishes four facets: perspective taking, fantasy, empathic concern and personal distress. This test uses two facets for each type.
Is it better to have more empathy?
Not necessarily. Paul Bloom (2016) argues that emotional empathy is biased and is directed mainly at people who resemble us. In negotiation, research by Galinsky and colleagues (2008) found an advantage in perspective taking, not in emotional empathy.
Does empathy help you negotiate better?
Cognitive empathy does, according to the research. In the experiments by Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin and White (2008), people who got inside the other side's head reached better deals and found more solutions in which both sides won.
Does a low score mean I'm a psychopath or have a disorder?
No. This test describes preferences and habits within the general population and does not detect any disorder. Empathy varies a lot with tiredness, stress and the relationship with each person.
See all 7 questions
Is this the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI)?
No. Davis's IRI is a research scale. This test uses original statements written for a general audience, inspired by the same multidimensional approach, without psychometric validation.
How long does it take, and is it free?
It has 16 statements and takes about 2 minutes. It is free, with no sign-up, and your answers are not stored or sent anywhere.
