TPC Journal V8, Issue 4- FULL ISSUE

The Professional Counselor | Volume 8, Issue 4 351 Furthermore, the results from this study indicated that CITs possess higher levels of sympathy than of both cognitive and affective components of empathy. We recommend that counselor educators facilitate CITs’ understanding of the differences between empathy and sympathy and bring awareness to their use of sympathetic responses rather than empathic responses. It is our hope that CITs will possess a strong enough understanding between empathy and sympathy to be able to choose to use either response as it fits within a counseling context (Clark, 2010). We also encourage counselor educators to consider recommendations made by Bloom and Lambie (in press) to employ the AMES with CITs. The AMES could be a valuable and accessible tool to assist counselor educators in evaluating CITs’ levels of empathy and sympathy in regard to course assignments, in response to clinical situations, or as a wholesale measure of empathy development. As Bloom and Lambie encouraged, clinical training programs might benefit from using the AMES as a tool to programmatically measure CITs’ levels of empathy throughout their experience in their training program (i.e., transition points) as a way to collect programmatic data. Limitations Although this study produced important findings, some limitations exist. It is noted that the majority of participants from this study attended universities located within the Southeastern United States. As a result, the sample might not be representative of students nationwide. Similarly, demographic characteristics of the present study including the race, age, and gender composition of the sample limit the generalizability of the findings. This study also is limited in that the instrument used to assess empathy and sympathy was a self- report measure. Although self-report measures have been shown to be reliable and are widely used within research, these measures might result in the under- or over-reporting of the variables of interest (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). It is necessary to note that we employed the AMES, which was normed with adolescents and not undergraduate or graduate students. Although we recognize that inherent differences exist between adolescent and emerging adult populations, we believed the AMES was an effective choice to measure empathy because of Vossen and colleagues’ (2015) intentional development of the instrument to address existing weaknesses in other empathy assessment instruments. Nonetheless, it is necessary to interpret our results with caution. Recommendations for Future Research We recommend future researchers address some of the limitations of this study. Specifically, we recommend continuing to compare CITs’ levels of empathy with students from other academic disciplines, but to include a more diverse array of academic backgrounds. Similarly, we suggest future researchers not limit themselves to an emerging adult population, as both undergraduate and graduate populations include individuals over the age of 29. Further, researchers should aim to collect data from students across the country and to include a more demographically diverse sample in their research designs. Additionally, it is necessary to note that limitations exist to using self-report measures (Gall et al., 2007), and measures of empathy are vulnerable to a myriad of complications (Bloom & Lambie, in press; Vossen et al., 2015). Thus, we encourage future researchers to consider using different measures of empathy that move away from a self-report format (e.g., clients’ perceptions of cognitive and affective empathy within a therapeutic relationship; Flasch et al., in press). Another area for future research is to track counseling students’ levels of empathy as they enter the counseling profession after graduation. It is possible that as they become more comfortable and competent as counselors, and as anxiety and self- focus decrease, their ability to empathize increases.