Research Project B

Assessment Type 3: Evaluation

“The words shaded in yellow on the student work provide evidence to support the
assessment decision with reference to the Performance Standards. The comments and
words shaded in pink are the commentary provided at implementation workshops to
illustrate the elements of an Evaluation.”

Is empathy a function of the brain which can be manipulated?

Page 1 of 6 Stage 2 Research Project B Student Response

Ref: A293042 (updated January 2015
© SACE Board of South Australia 2015
 Summary of the research question and outcome
My research project question was inspired by a trip to India last year. From this experience I
questioned how unwilling society was to eradicate social calamities, particularly poverty, and
why some people were more inclined to act on issues of injustice than others. As I researched
I discovered that empathy is a neurobiological function of the brain, particularly the left inferior
frontal gyrus. I was able to correlate that neurobiological function was connected to the mirror
neuron system, and is enhanced when life experiences stimulate an emotional response. I
proved this through the application of two surveys which measured empathy levels. My
outcome is in the form of a report explaining the results of my research. The key finding of my
research is that empathy is not a static measurement but is dependent on age, gender and
education, and is able to be manipulated and enhanced over time. (148 words)
Evaluation
In order to begin refining what was a broad topic I conducted extensive reading of online
journals and articles to gain a greater understanding. The research process of literature
review helped me refine my topic, think more deeply about the concepts and challenge my
initial assumptions. For example, Zaki in his article published in Scientific American titled
‘What me care? Young are less empathetic’ blamed the effects of technology on society or
our lack of a tribal community for our lack of empathy. In contrast an article by Wein on the
National Institutes of Health website titled ‘Rats show empathy too’ presented a completely
new angle. My initial idea that empathy was a quality restricted only to humans was
challenged. This raised important questions within my research as to whether empathy was
simply an emotion, or in fact a function of the brain.
Many of the articles I had built my understanding of empathy on conflicted with other sources
so it became important for me to cross reference my research. It was through doing this that
my investigation could be further refined, finding that empathy could be enhanced by ones
mirror neuron system. It was from researching this that my inquiries led me to the Oxford
Brain Journal which discussed how the mirror neuron system functioned and hence validated
earlier sources. Not only was the content of this study pivotal for augmenting my
understanding of how age, gender and education dictated one’s ability to empathise, but it
acted as the catalyst to the development of the qualitative research.
In order to vary the types of research I used for this project I decided to conduct some
qualitative tests for empathy on some of my peers to determine whether the results
supported the claims of the academic articles or not. I was able to access a large number of
psychological tests on the internet including The Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES),
Basic Empathy Scale (BES), the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) and the Yawning
Test. My research indicated that many of these tests have weaknesses and can be
misinterpreted. For example the Yawning Test is based on the premise that in a group of
people, if one person yawns, the first person to catch the yawn would be the most empathic. I
think there needs to be greater research to determine whether this test provides valid or
credible results and consequently I dismissed it as a valid test for my purposes. However, one
consistent aspect of the results of all of the tests is that empathy is higher in females than
males and this is something I would like to test.

Having reviewed the descriptions of these various tests I decided to conduct two of the tests
myself. The two tests which became the pivotal part of my qualitative research were the
‘Interpersonal Reactivity Index’ test (IRI) and the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test (RME)
both sourced through the Oxford Brain Journal. The two tests enabled me to try to
independently validate my findings. As some of my sources stated that empathy could in fact
be manipulated it was important for me to substantiate whether empathy was actually a static
measurement. Initially, the ‘Interpersonal Reactivity’ test is a test designed to measure

Page 2 of 6 Stage 2 Research Project B Student Response

Ref: A293042 (updated January 2015
© SACE Board of South Australia 2015
 empathy through four different sub scales including testing perspective taking, empathetic
concern, personal distress and fantasy scales. I chose to use this test because it is
considered by many of the sources to demonstrate retest reliability and convergent validity. It
was also easy and free to get a copy of the test online and the instructions were clear.This
test was conducted in the school community and provided indications that empathy was
dependent on gender. However, further research indicated that the sub scales which
composed the test were uncorrelated and deemed that a higher score in any one sub-scale
did not indicate a greater level of empathy. Not only was this detrimental to the substantiation
of my findings but it also meant I had used a lot of time conducting and evaluating 150 sets of
results. This was a major weakness in my research and highlighted flaws in the approach I
took.

As it was initially difficult to draw conclusions from the findings using the ‘Interpersonal
Reactivity’ test I sought out another test to use to help me validate my results. The secondary
survey I selected was the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test. This test requires participants
to determine mental states from photos of pairs of eyes. It has been used in many studies
around the world and is considered by experts to be a test that is not influenced by a
participant’s cognitive ability or cultural background. However, I did determine that the test
required the subject to have a good vocabulary and an understanding of a range of emotions
to select from. For example, a participant needed to be able to tell the difference between
emotions such as such as being skeptical, sarcastic, aghast, insisting, impatient, preoccupied
or flirtatious based on the photos of eyes. This test was readily accessible on the internet and
easy to administer as it could be done online. I ensured that each participant remained
anonymous for privacy reasons. In order to draw valid conclusions I made sure that there
were equal numbers of male and female participants from a broad spectrum of social groups
and a range of different ages. This is what eventually provided the success of my findings
through this test. I found that age, gender and education were all factors which influenced
empathy, proving that the empathetic brain could in fact be manipulated. It is also rewarding
to know that empathy at a young age is still developing and growing throughout adolescence.

Although the two tests were conducted in order to validate my findings, the participants did
not compose a true cross-section of society, given that it was conducted only within the
school and local community.

As I expanded my research into the field of empathy, I came to find that there were many
convoluted concepts which were difficult to understand; hence it became important for me to
contact experts in the field of neurology to ask them for clearer explanations. However, this is
a very narrow field and there were few experts in the field in Adelaide so this was a challenge
that could not be overcome. As I was unable to contact a local expert I could have tried
emailing or phoning interstate or overseas experts in the field of psychology but I did not
follow up this options. The many complex terms and concepts I discovered were difficult to
explain in a simple manner but this has forced me to improve my vocabulary.

Another problem I faced was that the results of tests indicated whether one was empathetic or
not but did not help determine why. Much of the literature suggested that challenging
circumstances and life experiences could add to one’s empathetic ability but I was not able to
test this. It might have been useful for me to use the results from the ‘Reading the Mind in the
Eyes Test’ and research further by interviewing a sample of highly empathetic and less
empathetic respondents to find out about their life experiences or backgrounds. It would have
been relevant to try to determine why people are more empathetic.

Page 3 of 6 Stage 2 Research Project B Student Response

Ref: A293042 (updated January 2015
© SACE Board of South Australia 2015
 Just as there was much strength in my research, there were similarly many weaknesses
which limited the effectiveness of my outcome. I failed to manage my time appropriately for
my research intention and hence was unable to interrelate various aspects of the empathetic
brain. I had discovered that empathy was principally a function of the left inferior frontal gyrus
as this was the sector of the brain which distinguished emotional responses. However, I found
that there were many other subdivisions of the brain which coordinated responses and hence
my research was not fully reflective of empathy. As I delved deeper into what seemed like a
containable topic and my understanding grew I realized the enormity of the topic and hope to
be able to further explore the topic in the future as part of my chosen career in medicine.
As attested through my outcome, a formal report, empathy is a function of the brain which can
be enhanced. Consequently, my findings have become important in justifying the importance
of immersion learning in society. For this reason, my outcome can be considered to be
valuable for schools who might explore how to provide opportunities for students to improve
their empathy over time.

Page 4 of 6 Stage 2 Research Project B Student Response

Ref: A293042 (updated January 2015
© SACE Board of South Australia 2015
Assessment Comments
This response is an A+ grade.

Synthesis
S3 Clear evaluation uses sophisticated, subject specific language. The writing is logically structured and
incorporates elements of E1, E2 and E3 in a fluid, integrated manner.
Evaluation
E1 Insightful evaluation of limitations and benefits of the research processes, for example:
 one of the two tests undertaken as part of the process was identified, with reasons provided, as
'detrimental to the substantiation of… findings' (e.g. time wasting)
 recognition that the sample group comprising the school and local community, did not represent a true
cross-section of society
 acknowledgement that, while the test results indicated a person's empathy, they did not contribute to
an understanding of why the person was empathetic
 realisation that the results of emotional tests could have been followed up with interviews of 'a sample
of highly empathetic and less empathetic respondents' in order to determine reasons why some
people are more empathetic
 recognition that exposure to complex terms and concepts in the literature review process contributed
to an improvement in the student's vocabulary.
E2 Critical evaluation of progress made, and actions taken in response to challenges and/or opportunities
specific to the research processes used, include:
 recognition that conflicting articles led to refining of research
 decision made to reject one test as invalid, and to conduct two tests only in the process followed to
support the claims of academic articles
 realisation that the topic was not containable and that time was not managed well
 realisation (paragraph 2) that species other than humans show empathy, and that empathy, as an
emotion, is a function of the brain
 'convoluted concepts' were difficult to understand and assistance from a local expert neurologist was
not easily accessible.
E3 Brief but insightful reflection on the quality of the research outcome:
 the initial question is answered in the formal report, indicating a successful outcome
 results of research can be applied to support immersion learning - valuable in schools
 recognition of weaknesses that limited quality of the outcome, for example, depth/breadth of topic
greater than expected, problems with time-management.

Page 5 of 6 Stage 2 Research Project B Student Response

Ref: A293042 (updated January 2015
© SACE Board of South Australia 2015
Performance Standards for Stage 2 Research Project B

Planning Development Synthesis Evaluation

Assessment Type 1: Folio Assessment Type 2:

Assessment Type 3: Evaluation

A P1 Thorough D1 Thorough and highly resourceful S1 Insightful synthesis of E1 Insightful evaluation of the
consideration and development of the research. knowledge, skills, and ideas to research processes used,
refinement of a research produce a resolution to the specific to the research
question. D2 In-depth analysis of information and research question. question.
exploration of ideas to develop the research.
P2 Thorough planning of S2 Insightful and thorough E2 Critical evaluation of
research processes that D3 Highly effective development of substantiation of key findings decisions made in response to
are highly appropriate to knowledge and skills specific to the research relevant to the research challenges and/or opportunities
the research question. question. outcome. specific to the research
processes used.
D4 Thorough and informed understanding S3 Clear and coherent
and development of one or more capabilities. expression of ideas. E3 Insightful evaluation of the
quality of the research outcome

B P1 Consideration and D1 Considered and mostly resourceful S1 Considered synthesis of E1 Considered evaluation of
some refinement of a development of the research. knowledge, skills, and ideas to the research processes used,
research question. produce a resolution to the specific to the research
D2 Some complexity in analysis of research question. question.
P2 Considered planning of information and exploration of ideas to
research processes that develop the research. S2 Substantiation of most key E2 Some complexity in
are appropriate to the findings relevant to the evaluation of decisions made in
research question. D3 Effective development of knowledge and research outcome. response to challenges and/or
skills specific to the research question. opportunities specific to the
S3 Mostly clear and coherent research processes used.
D4 Informed understanding and development expression of ideas.
of one or more capabilities. E3 Considered evaluation of
the quality of the research
outcome

C P1 Some consideration of D1 Satisfactory development of the research. S1 Satisfactory synthesis of E1 Recount with some
a research question, but knowledge, skills, and ideas to evaluation of the research
little evidence of D2 Satisfactory analysis of information and produce a resolution to the processes used.
refinement. exploration of ideas to develop the research. research question.
E2 Some evaluation, with
P2 Satisfactory planning of D3 Satisfactory development of knowledge S2 Substantiation of some key mostly description of decisions
research processes that and skills specific to the research question. findings relevant to the made in response to challenges
are appropriate to the research outcome. and/or opportunities specific to
D4 Satisfactory understanding and
research question. the research processes used.
development of one or more capabilities. S3 Generally clear expression
of ideas. E3 Satisfactory evaluation of
the quality of the research
outcome

D P1 Basic consideration D1 Development of some aspects of the S1 Basic use of information and E1 Superficial description of the
and identification of a research. ideas to produce a resolution to research processes used.
broad research question. the research question.
D2 Collection rather than analysis of E2 Basic description of
P2 Partial planning of information, with some superficial description S2 Basic explanation of ideas decisions made in response to
research processes that of an idea to develop the research. related to the research challenges and/or opportunities
may be appropriate to the outcome. specific to the research
research question. D3 Superficial development of some processes used.
knowledge and skills specific to the research S3 Basic expression of ideas.
question. E3 Superficial evaluation of the
quality of the research outcome
D4 Basic understanding and development of
one or more capabilities

E P1 Attempted D1 Attempted development of an aspect of S1 Attempted use of an idea to E1 Attempted description of the
consideration and the research. produce a resolution to the research process used.
identification of an area for research question.
research. D2 Attempted collection of basic information, E2 Attempted description of
with some partial description of an idea. S2 Limited explanation of an decisions made in response to
P2 Attempted planning of idea or an aspect of the a challenge and/or opportunity
an aspect of the research D3 Attempted development of one or more research outcome. specific to the research
process. skills that may be related to the research processes used.
question. S3 Attempted expression of
ideas. E3 Attempted evaluation of the
D4 Attempted understanding and quality of the research outcome
development of one or more capabilities.

Page 6 of 6 Stage 2 Research Project B Student Response

Ref: A293042 (updated January 2015)
© SACE Board of South Australia 2015