Empathy Development in Design Students: A Comparative Analysis of First- And Second-Year Cohorts

Research Paper Recommended citation: Khan, R., Frank, B. M., & Hungler, P. (2025). Empathy Development in Design Students: A Comparative Analysis of FirstAnd Second-Year Cohorts. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631640. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. EMPATHY DEVELOPMENT IN DESIGN STUDENTS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FIRSTAND SECOND-YEAR COHORTS R. Khana , B. M. Franka, P. Hunglera a Queen's University, Canada Conference Key Areas: Engineering skills, professional skills, and transversal skills; Improving higher engineering education through researching engineering education Keywords: Empathy, Engineering design, Comparative analysis ABSTRACT This paper explores empathy development in engineering education. Empathy, the ability to understand and share others' feelings, is crucial in engineering practice, enabling engineers to consider the impact of their designs and decisions on stakeholders. Prior research highlights empathy's importance in engineering, connecting it to ethical responsibility and user-centred solutions (Hess et al.,2017). However, challenges exist in integrating empathy into engineering education, including the need for effective pedagogical strategies and tensions between traditional engineering culture and empathy development (Kotluk and Tormey,2025). This paper presents a comparative analysis of empathy development between firstyear and second-year engineering design students. The study uses the Empathy in Design Scale (EMPA-D) (Drouet et al., 2024), modified for engineering students' design tasks. The students in second year had significantly lower scores than first year students on two of the dimensions. These findings prompt the need for better understanding of how this construct changes in order to provide insights into empathy development in engineering students and inform educational practices to foster empathy in curricula. 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Empathy in Engineering The engineering education discourse increasingly recognizes empathy's importance in preparing students for 21st-century challenges. Empathy, defined as the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, is fundamental to engineering practice, enabling engineers to consider the impact of their designs and decisions on endusers and other stakeholders. Hess et al. (2017) explored engineers' perceptions of empathy and care, highlighting their importance, particularly in relational aspects of engineering practice. The study also acknowledges challenges and tensions surrounding empathy in engineering, including limited conceptual models and empirical bases, a "culture of disengagement" that devalues "social" competencies like empathy (Cech, 2014), and found no gender effect on empathy perceptions. To measure empathy and care, the authors designed the Empathy and Care Questionnaire (ECQ). 1.2 Empathy Development in Engineering Education Engineering education is integrating empathy for 21st-century challenges, especially in multidisciplinary contexts. Hess et al. (2021) combined animal tissue harvesting with ethical reflection in a biomedical engineering course, evaluating affective and cognitive empathy. They observed slight increases in perspective-taking and slight decreases in empathic concern, emphasizing the importance of integrating empathy and ethical becoming into the curriculum. Rasoal et al. (2012) studied empathy in engineering and health care students, using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Engineering students showed lower empathy than health care students, with applied physics students exhibiting lower empathy in fantasy (imaginative self-projection into fictional characters and narratives), while psychology students showed higher perspective-taking than applied physics students. They suggest problem-based learning and simulated environments can foster empathy, enhancing leadership and professional success. 1.3 Empathy Development in Engineering Design Education Similar to Rasoal et al. (2012), Walther et al. (2020)) highlight empathy's importance in engineering, proposing a Skills, Orientation, and Being conceptual model. Guanes et al. (2022) found students value empathy in design but prioritize direct influences, recommending curricula emphasize diverse perspectives and stakeholder involvement. Drouet et al. (2024) explain that Kouprie and Visser (2009) detailed a four-phase framework that includes the designer's discovery and willingness to understand users' experiences, immersion by taking the user's point of reference, connection through reflection on their own experiences, and detachment to find solutions. Hess and Fila (2016) conceptualized empathy across four dimensions: imagine-other perspective-taking, empathic concern, emotional congruence/empathic distress, and imagine-self perspective-taking/projection. Smeenk et al. (2019) proposed the Empathic Formation Compass, which integrates dimensions from prior work, including the three perspectives a designer can take (first-person, second-person, and third-person perspective). This framework also includes information sources and factors that foster empathy in design, characterized by mindsets such as emotional interest, sensitivity, personal experience, and self-awareness. 1.4 Nurturing Empathy Development Kotluk and Tormey (2025) examined compassion in engineering ethics, highlighting the need to consider emotional intensity in case studies. They found compassion can be increased by including emotional targets, similarity to the target, and distress evidence. Explicitly expressing compassion and showing severe consequences also enhances empathy gradually across a timeframe. To foster empathy, engineering education should integrate compassion into case studies and in their delivery. Sundaram and Kellam's (2024) work on Teacher Empathy shows that including empathetic practices in the classroom can be transformative for instructors. They recommend honest student feedback to help faculty understand student needs and develop further empathetic strategies in engineering education. 1.5 Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of empathy among first-year and second-year engineering design students. Given the increasing recognition of empathy's importance in engineering practice (Guanes et al., 2022; Rasoal et al., 2012; Walther et al., 2020) and the limited research on how empathy changes across a curriculum to inform curricular interventions, this study seeks to answer the following research question: 1. Are there between-group differences in empathy among engineering design students, considering year of study and gender? 2. What is the nature of the relationship between different types of empathy, among engineering design students, and how does this relationship vary between first-year and second-year cohorts? 2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Survey Instrument Drouet et al. (2024) validated the Empathy in Design Scale (EMPA-D), measuring service employee empathy. Its development synthesized design empathy frameworks (Kouprie & Visser, 2009; Hess & Fila, 2016; Smeenk et al., 2019), defining design empathy as the ability to understand user experiences. The EMPA-D uses three factors: emotional interest/perspective-taking, personal experience use, and self-awareness. This instrument was adapted for students, replacing "client" with "stakeholder" (Table 1), following author consultation. Table 1. Modified Empathy in Design Scale for Engineering Education Emotional interest/Perspective-taking (EIPT) (cognitive empathy) EIPT-1 I am interested to learn about stakeholders’ experiences and needs EIPT-2 I am curious about stakeholders’ experiences and needs EIPT-3 I want to learn about stakeholders’ experiences and opinions regarding design problem EIPT-4 As an engineering designer, I try to find out what the stakeholders’ needs are EIPT-5 I take action to view things from the stakeholders’ perspective EIPT-6 I am actively listening to stakeholders’ experiences to better understand their perspectives Personal experience (PE) (affective empathy) PE-1 The experiences and feelings of stakeholders resonate with my own PE-2 I understand the stakeholders’ experiences because I know how it feels Self-awareness (SA) (affective empathy) SA-1 I am aware that my experiences as an engineering designer are different from the ones of stakeholders SA -2 I realize that there are similarities and differences between my experiences and the ones of stakeholders SA-3 I understand why stakeholders perceive things different than I do as an engineering designer 2.2 Context of study This study was conducted at a mid-sized Canadian research university and recruited students from first and second-year project-based engineering design courses. Both courses emphasize stakeholder perspectives. In the design courses taken in the first term of first year and first term of second year, data was collected at the end of the 2024 term. Tables 2 and 3 show the relationship between instrument factors and the courses. Table 2: Alignment of first year course with factors in the instrument Factor First year course & coincident experiences 1. Emotional interest/ Perspective-taking (EIPT) Students are asked to explore a scenario from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders (EIPT-4,5) 2. Personal experience (PE) (not directly addressed) 3. Self-awareness (SA) Students are asked to explore a scenario and identify why stakeholders will have different perspectives (SA-1,3) Table 3: Alignment of second year course with factors in the instrument Factor Second year course & other experiences 1. Emotional interest/ Perspective-taking (EIPT) In first year winter term students work with clients, they are tasked with evaluating the project from various stakeholder perspectives. (EIPT-1-6). 2. Personal experience (PE) In the last half of the second-year design course, students work on a discipline specific project which often resonates with the student teams and elicits affective empathy. (PE 1,2) 3. Self-awareness (SA) In the first half of the second-year design course, students focus on a large open ended non-discipline specific problem. Often the stakeholders have different perspectives as they are typically outside the student’s engineering discipline. (SA 1,2) The quantitative data was collected by administering the surveys via Qualtrics. The proportion by gender in both years is roughly representative of the overall student cohort. Approximately 25% (N=259) of the population in the first-year course completed the survey, and 28% (N=116) of the population of the section of the second-year course surveyed. Across both years, males represented the majority of participants (Year 1: 68.2%, Year 2: 56.3%), while females comprised a smaller portion (Year 1: 28.6%, Year 2: 40.2%), with a small percentage identifying as 'Other' or 'Unspecified'. Ethical approval was received from the institution’s review board to conduct the research and collect data through surveys. The data was handled by a researcher who was at arm’s length to the students. 2.3 Quantitative Analysis IBM SPSS was used for quantitative analysis. Non-parametric correlations addressed relationships due to non-normal distributions. Linear regression with interaction terms tested cohort moderation of EIPT_Mean and SA. Mann-Whitney U tests explored gender and year differences, with rank-biserial correlation effect sizes. 3 RESULTS 3.1 Reliability of Instrument The internal consistency of the three empathy factors was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. The EIPT scale (6 items, α = .91) and SA scale (3 items, α = .90) showed excellent reliability, while the PE scale (2 items, α = .74) showed acceptable reliability. The correlation matrix showed strong inter-correlations within EIPT (r = .523-.828, p < .001), PE (r = .606, p < .001), and SA (r = .711-.740, p < .001), and moderate correlations between factors (r = .231-.648, p < .001), shown in Table 4. Table 4. Correlations Among Empathy Items Item EI1 EI3 EI4 PT3 PT5 PT9 PE2 PE3 SA2 SA3 SA4 EI1 1 0.828 0.696 0.523 0.531 0.572 0.5 0.379 0.438 0.435 0.408 EI3 0.828 1 0.711 0.544 0.566 0.56 0.476 0.44 0.448 0.41 0.42 EI4 0.696 0.711 1 0.645 0.58 0.575 0.447 0.36 0.499 0.494 0.512 PT3 0.523 0.544 0.645 1 0.744 0.648 0.453 0.275 0.593 0.562 0.543 PT5 0.531 0.566 0.58 0.744 1 0.753 0.534 0.411 0.514 0.526 0.569 PT9 0.572 0.56 0.575 0.648 0.753 1 0.532 0.393 0.515 0.501 0.539 PE2 0.5 0.476 0.447 0.453 0.534 0.532 1 0.606 0.281 0.352 0.373 PE3 0.379 0.44 0.36 0.275 0.411 0.393 0.606 1 0.231 0.342 0.308 SA2 0.438 0.448 0.499 0.593 0.514 0.515 0.281 0.231 1 0.74 0.711 SA3 0.435 0.41 0.494 0.562 0.526 0.501 0.352 0.342 0.74 1 0.723 SA4 0.408 0.42 0.512 0.543 0.569 0.539 0.373 0.308 0.711 0.723 1 Note. EI = Empathic Interest; PT = Perspective Taking; PE = Personal Experience; SA = Self-Awareness. All correlations are significant at p < .001. 3.2 Analysis Descriptives Descriptive statistics showed ceiling effects in EIPT_Mean and SA_Mean, indicating limited differentiation among high-empathy participants (Table 5). PE_Mean had a moderate average but with negative skew. Due to non-normal distributions and ceiling effects in EIPT_Mean and SA_Mean, non-parametric tests, like MannWhitney U, were used for analyses. Levene's test showed significant variance differences between first and second-year students for perspective-taking (EIPT_Mean) and self-awareness (SA_Mean), with Year 2 exhibiting lower variability (medium effect size). Specifically, standard deviations for both EIPT_Mean and SA_Mean were smaller in Year 2. However, personal experiences (PE_Mean) showed no significant variance differences between the two years, with similar standard deviations. Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Empathy Factors by Year Year Empathy Factor N M SD 1 EIPT_Mean 245 4.2 0.72 PE_Mean 245 3.51 0.9 SA_Mean 245 4.56 0.56 2 EIPT_Mean 87 3.91 0.85 PE_Mean 87 3.47 0.87 SA_Mean 87 4.25 0.78 Non-parametric Tests - Gender Effects Mann-Whitney U tests showed females scored significantly higher than males in perspective-taking and personal experiences in both first and second year (small effect sizes). First-year females also scored higher in self-awareness, but this difference was not significant in second year. This indicates a year-specific gender difference in self-awareness, as seen in Table 6. Table 6. Comparison of Gender Differences Between Year 1 and Year 2 Factor Year Significant Difference? Direction of Difference Effect Size EIPT_Mean 1 Yes Females higher -0.232 2 Yes Females higher -0.265 PE_Mean 1 Yes Females higher -0.195 2 Yes Females higher -0.226 SA_Mean 1 Yes Females higher -0.18 2 No - -0.086 Non-parametric Tests – Year of Study Effects Mann-Whitney U tests compared empathy levels (perspective-taking [EIPT], personal experiences [PE], and self-awareness [SA]) between first-year and second year students. Results showed significant differences for perspective-taking (U = 8349.00, z = -3.019, p = .003, r = .255) and self-awareness (U = 8079.50, z = -3.460, p < .001, r = .281), with second-year students having significantly lower scores, but no difference in personal experiences (U = 10242.00, z = -.551, p = .582, r = .052). These findings suggest that the year of study impacts perspective-taking and selfawareness, with medium and small effect sizes respectively, as shown in Table 7. Table 7. Mann-Whitney U Test Results for Empathy Factors by Year Empathy Factor U value Z value P value Effect Size EIPT_Mean 8349 -3.019 0.003 0.255 PE_Mean 10242 -0.551 0.582 0.052 SA_Mean 8079.5 -3.46 < .001 0.281 3.3 Moderation Analysis A moderation analysis examined whether the relationship between perspectivetaking (EIPT_Mean) and self-awareness (SA_Mean) was moderated by year of study. As illustrated in Figure 1, the positive relationship between EIPT_Mean and SA_Mean was stronger for first-year students compared to second-year students. The steeper slope for Year 1 indicates that higher perspective-taking is associated with a greater increase in self-awareness, while the flatter slope for Year 2 suggests a weaker relationship. This supports the significant interaction effect reported in the moderation analysis. Fig. 1. Relationship between perspective-taking (EIPT_Mean) and self-awareness (SA_Mean) as moderated by year of study (Year 1 vs. Year 2) Similar moderation analysis was conducted to examine whether year of study moderated the relationship between perspective-taking (EIPT_Mean) and personal experiences (PE_Mean) as well as self-awareness (SA_Mean) and personal experiences (PE_Mean). The interactions between both sets of factors were not significant, suggesting that the relationship between them did not differ significantly between first-year and second-year students 4 DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, AND CONCLUSION The findings of this study revealed significant differences in empathy between firstyear and second-year design students. Specifically, second-year students exhibited significantly lower levels of perspective-taking (EIPT_Mean) and self-awareness (SA_Mean) compared to first-year students. Preliminary analysis of student focus groups conducted after the survey suggest that the large student workload has a negative impact on empathy and may be partially responsible for this decline. However, this it warrants further investigation as additional possible explanations include changes in curriculum or teaching methodologies, developmental shifts in students' priorities, improved self-awareness, or variations in student demographics. Personal experiences (PE_Mean) did not differ significantly between the two years, suggesting relative stability in this aspect of empathy across the first two years. This may reflect less time spent directly addressing this, or a culture of disengagement starts to appear as students take on a stronger engineering identity (Cech, 2014). The analysis of variance revealed that the variability in perspective-taking (EIPT_Mean) and self-awareness (SA_Mean) scores was significantly lower in second-year students compared to first-year students. This suggests that students conform to their peers in terms of perspective-taking and self-awareness as they progress through the curriculum (Cialdine & Goldstein, 1998). This convergence in empathy scores could indicate that the curriculum influences students' development of these specific empathy facets, leading to a more homogeneous understanding and expression by the second year. However, the variability in personal experiences (PE_Mean) did not differ significantly, suggesting this aspect of empathy may not be affected similarly. Significant gender differences in empathy were observed, with females consistently reporting higher levels of perspective-taking (EIPT_Mean) and personal experiences (PE_Mean) compared to males in both years. This aligns with previous research suggesting potential gender differences in empathic responding (Rochat, 2023) and may reflect variations in socialization, self-perception, or emotional processing within design education. Notably, while a significant gender difference in self-awareness (SA_Mean) was found in first-year students, with females scoring higher than males, this difference was not present in the second-year cohort. This suggests that the relationship between gender and self-awareness may evolve across the first two years. However, the effect sizes for gender differences were generally small, indicating limited practical importance. Moderation analyses showed that the relationship between perspective-taking (EIPT_Mean) and self-awareness (SA_Mean) was significantly moderated by year of study. Specifically, the positive relationship between perspective-taking and selfawareness was stronger for first-year students compared to second-year students. This suggests that higher levels of perspective-taking are associated with a greater increase in self-awareness in first-year students, while this relationship is attenuated in second-year students. This may reflect developmental changes in the interplay between these empathy aspects as students progress. This finding also suggests that there is a growing dissonance between cognitive (EIPT) and affective (SA) types of empathy in students. Several limitations should be considered. The cross-sectional nature of the study does not allow for examining longitudinal changes. Furthermore, the non-normality of the data necessitated non-parametric tests, and ceiling effects in EIPT_Mean and SA_Mean may have restricted variability. Finally, the study did not explicitly control