ABSTRACT
Objectives
To assess differences in the recognition of facial expressions of emotion among caregivers of older people with different levels of empathy.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted with 158 caregivers of older adults who provided care in family residences or nursing homes. The caregivers were divided into three groups based on the score of the multidimensional Interpersonal Reactivity Index: “lower empathy”, “intermediate empathy”, and “higher empathy”. Data collection involved the administration of a sociodemographic questionnaire, the Emotion Recognition Test, and the Patient Health Questionnaire.
Results
No significant differences were found among the groups in terms of sociodemographic variables. Regarding clinical characteristics, the “higher empathy” group had more depressive symptoms than the other groups (p = .001). Moreover, the “higher empathy” group exhibited greater accuracy at recognizing the expression of sadness than the “lower empathy” group (p = .033). The recognition of sadness remained significant in the analysis of variance adjusted for depressive symptoms (p < .05).
Conclusions
Caregivers with higher levels of empathy showed greater accuracy at recognizing sadness emotion compared to caregivers with lower levels of empathy. Additionally, caregivers with greater empathy have more depressive symptoms.
Clinical implications
The recognition of facial expressions of sadness may give caregivers a skill to infer possible needs in older care recipients. However, a higher level of empathy may exert a negative psychological impact on caregivers of older people, which could have repercussions regarding the quality of care provided.
Clinical implications
The recognition of facial expressions of sadness on the part of caregiver can assist in the capacity to infer possible needs of older care recipients.
A higher level of empathy may exert a negative psychological impact on caregivers of older people, which could have repercussions regarding the quality of care provided.
Disclosure conflicts of interest statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).