To be or not to be an inclusive teacher: Are empathy and social dominance relevant factors to positive attitudes towards inclusive education?

Autoři: Diego Navarro-Mateu aff001;  Jacqueline Franco-Ochoa aff002;  Selene Valero-Moreno aff003;  Vicente Prado-Gascó aff004
Působiště autorů: Department of Educational Psychology and Special Educational Needs, Faculty of Psychology, Teaching and Educational Sciences at the Catholic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain aff001;  Faculty of Psychology, Teaching and Educational Sciences at the Catholic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain aff002;  Department of Personality, Assessment and Psychological Treatments, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain aff003;  Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225993


Positive inclusive teacher attitudes are a key factor in achieving inclusive education due to the many benefits they generate for schools and social contexts. Studies have focused on analysing which variables may promote positive attitudes. The objective of this study was to analyse the predictive power of sociodemographic variables, empathy (cognitive and emotional), and social dominance orientation (social dominance and opposition to equality) on teachers’ attitudes, sentiments, and concerns about inclusion by comparing linear relationship models and models based on fuzzy-set comparative qualitative analysis. The sample consisted of 268 teachers of different educational levels aged between 20 and 64 years (M = 42.46, SD = 9.22), 66% of whom were women. The teachers were administered the Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) scale, the Basic Empathy Scale (BES), and the Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale. Two different statistical methodologies were used: traditional regression models and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) models. The results of the regression models suggest that social dominance is the main predictor of attitudes, sentiments, and concerns about inclusion. Social dominance is negatively related to attitudes and positively related to sentiments and concerns. Only opposition to equality and emotional empathy are related to attitudes. On the other hand, the results of the QCA models suggest that low social dominance and high cognitive and emotional empathy, as well as female sex, predict higher levels of positive attitudes, sentiments, and concerns about inclusion. Since teachers interact most with students, it is important to be aware of how their empathy and social dominance orientations influence inclusion to develop intervention programmes that seek to train teachers in these capabilities.

Klíčová slova:

Behavior – Emotions – Interpersonal relationships – Psychometrics – Research validity – Schools – Social discrimination – Teachers


1. Ebersold S, Watkins A. Mapping the implementation of policy for inclusive education (mipie) _ Agence Européenne [Internet]. 2011. p. 102.

2. Tardi R. The Right To Inclusive Education for Children: Good Practicies in the CEECIS Region and Recommendations to the Albanian Government [Internet]. 2012.

3. Göransson K, Nilholm C. Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings–a critical analysis of research on inclusive education. Eur J Spec Needs Educ [Internet]. 2014 Jul 3;29(3):265–80. Available from:

4. Rubio JG. Evolución legislativa de la educación inclusiva en España. Rev Educ Inclusiva. 2017;10(1).

5. Booth T, Ainscow M. Guía para la educación inclusiva. Desarrollando el aprendizaje y la participación [Internet]. 2015. 199 p.

6. Ajzen I. Attitude, structure, and behavior. In:. Pratkanis A., Breckler SJ, Greenwald AG, editors. Attitude structure and function. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1989. p. 241–74.

7. Ferguson CJ, Dyck D. Paradigm change in aggression research : The time has come to retire the General Aggression Model. Aggress Violent Behav. 2012;12:220–8.

8. Corrigan PW, Rüsch N, Scior K. Adapting Disclosure Programs to Reduce the Stigma of Mental Illness. Psychiatr Serv [Internet]. 2018;(July) Available from:

9. Каbаrdov M, Bauer E. Study Results of the Russian and German Schoolchildren ‘ s Psychological Features and Social and Psychological Adaptation Features. Procedia—Soc Behav Sci [Internet]. 2017;237(June 2016):1105–11. Available from:

10. González-Gil F, Martín-Pastor E, Flores Robaina N, Río CJ, Castro RP, Gómez-Vela M. Inclusión y convivencia escolar: análisis de la formación del profesorado. Eur J Investig Heal Psychol Educ J investig Heal psychol. 2013;3(July):2174–8144.

11. Tarrant M, Hadert A. Empathic Experience and Attitudes Toward Stigmatized Groups : Evidence for Attitude Generalization. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2010;40(7):1635–56.

12. Sharma U, Chambers D, Deppeler J, Loreman T, Forlin C. Conceptualising and Measuring Inclusive Education. In: Measuring Inclusive Education [Internet]. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2014. p. 1–3. (International Perspectives on Inclusive Education; vol. 3).

13. Forlin C, Earle C, Loreman T, Sharma U. The Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) Scale for Measuring Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions about Inclusion. Except Educ Int [Internet]. 2011;21(3):50–65. Available from:

14. Loreman T, Sharma U, Forlin C. Measuring Indicators of Inclusive Education: A Systematic Review of the Literature. In: Measuring Inclusive Education [Internet]. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2014. p. 165–187 SE-9. (International Perspectives on Inclusive Education; vol. 3).

15. Ruiz MJC, Palomino MDCP. Cuestionario para futuros docentes de Educación Secundaria acerca de las percepciones sobre atención a la diversidad: Construcción y validación del instrumento. Estud Sobre Educ. 2015;29:165–89.

16. Kraska J, Boyle C. Attitudes of preschool and primary school pre-service teachers towards inclusive education. Asia-Pacific J Teach Educ [Internet]. 2014 Jul 3;42(3):228–46. Available from:

17. Urton K, Wilbert J, Hennemann T. Attitudes towards inclusion and self-efficacy of principals and teachers in German primary schools. Learn Disabil A Contemp J. 2014;12(2):151–68.

18. Crowson HM, Brandes JA. Predicting pre-service teachers’ opposition to inclusion of students with disabilities: a path analytic study. Soc Psychol Educ [Internet]. 2014;17(1):161–78. Available from:

19. Crowson HM, Brandes JA, Hurst RJ. Who opposes rights for persons with physical and intellectual disabilities? J Appl Soc Psychol. 2013;43:307–18.

20. Booth T, Simón C, Iniciales A. Guía para la Educación Inclusiva. Promoviendo el Aprendizaje y la Participación en las Escuelas: Nueva Edición Revisada y Ampliada Index for Inclusion. Developing Learning and Participation in Schools: New Revised and Expanded Edition. Rev Iberoam sobre Calidad, Efic y Cambio en Educ. 2015;13(3):5–19.

21. Messiou K, Ainscow M, Echeita G, Goldrick S, Hope M, Paes I, et al. Learning from differences: a strategy for teacher development in respect to student diversity. Sch Eff Sch Improv [Internet]. 2016;27(1):45–61. Available from:

22. Álvarez JL. La explicación de las actitudes hacia la educación inclusiva en futuros profesionales de la educación: a vueltas con los valores. In: González-Geraldo JL, editor. Educación, Desarrollo y cohesión social. Compobell: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla La mancha; 2015.

23. Bisquerra R. Educación emocional y competencias. Rev Investig Educ. 2003;21(1):7–43.

24. Batchelder L, Brosnan M, Ashwin C. The Development and Validation of the Empathy Components Questionnaire (ECQ). PLoS One [Internet]. 2017 Jan 11;12(1):e0169185. Available from:

25. Cruz R. Should we move from special education to inclusive education ? Perspectives and possibilities of advance. Alteridad, Rev Educ. 2018;13(2):245–54.

26. Gonzalez KA, Riggle EDB, Rostosky SS. Cultivating positive feelings and attitudes: A path to prejudice reduction and ally behavior. Transl Issues Psychol Sci. 2015;1(4):372–81.

27. Stephan WG, Finlay K. The Role of Empathy in Improving Intergroup Relations. 1999;55(4):729–43.

28. Batson DC, Ahmad NY. Empathy-induced altruism: A threat to the collective good. In: Altruism and Prosocial Behavior in Groups [Internet]. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2009. p. 1–23. (Advances in Group Processes; vol. 26).

29. Andreychik MR, Migliaccio N. Empathizing With Others’ Pain Versus Empathizing With Others’ Joy: Examining the Separability of Positive and Negative Empathy and Their Relation to Different Types of Social Behaviors and Social Emotions. Basic Appl Soc Psych [Internet]. 2015 Sep 3;37(5):274–91. Available from:

30. Devine PG, Forscher PS, Austin AJ, Cox WTL. Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. J Exp Soc Psychol [Internet]. 2012 Nov;48(6):1267–78. Available from:

31. Pratto F, Sidanius J, Stallworth LM, Bertram F. Social Dominance Orientation : A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes Social Dominance Orientation : A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;67(4):741–63.

32. Greenstone JD. Group theories. Handb Polit Sci. 1975;2:243–318.

33. Tajfel H. Human groups and social categories. Barcelona: Cambridge University Press; 1981.

34. Turner JC, Oakes PJ, Haslam SA, Mcgarty C. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1994;

35. Young IM. Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford Political Theory). Oxford. Oxford University Press; 2002.

36. Aiello A, Pratto F, Pierro A. Framing Social Dominance Orientation and Power in Organizational Context. Basic Appl Soc Psych [Internet]. 2013 Sep 1;35(5):487–95. Available from:

37. Roccato M, Ricolfi L. On the Correlation Between Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation. Basic Appl Soc Psych [Internet]. 2005 Sep 1;27(3):187–200. Available from:

38. Pratto F, Sidanius J. Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. 2006;271–320.

39. Troian J, Bonetto E, Varet F, Barbier M, Lo Monaco G. The effect of social dominance on prejudice towards North-African minorities: Evidence for the role of social representation of secularism as a legitimizing myth. Int J Intercult Relations. 2018;65:96–104.

40. Vezzali L, Antonio G, Bernardo D, Stathi S, Cadamuro A, Barbara L. Secondary transfer effect among children: The role of social dominance orientation and outgroup attitudes a sticov a 3 and Simona Andra s cikov. 2018;547–66.

41. Abellan J, Saez-Gallego N, Reina R. Exploring the effect of contact and inclusive sport on Physical Education in the attitudes toward intellectual disability of high school students. RICYDE-REVISTA Int CIENCIAS DEL Deport. 2018 Jul;14(53):233–42.

42. Paz Maldonado JE. La formación del profesorado universitario para la atención a la diversidad en la educación superior. IE Rev investig educ REDIECH. 2018;9(16):67–82.

43. Vermande MM, Gilholm PA, Reijntjes AHA, Hessen DJ, Sterck EHM, Overduin-de Vries AM. Is Inspiring Group Members an Effective Predictor of Social Dominance in Early Adolescence? Direct and Moderated Effects of Behavioral Strategies, Social Skills, and Gender on Resource Control and Popularity. J Youth Adolesc. 2018 Sep;47(9):1813–29. doi: 10.1007/s10964-018-0830-9 29536330

44. Van Mieghem A, Verschueren K, Petry K, Struyf E. An analysis of research on inclusive education: a systematic search and meta review. Int J Incl Educ [Internet]. 2018 Jun 6;1–15. Available from:

45. Tsakiridou H, Polyzopoulou K. Greek teachers¡¯ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with special educational needs. Am J Educ Res. 2014;2(4):208–18.

46. Sharma U, Sokal L. The impact of a teacher education course on pre-service teachers ‘ beliefs about inclusion : an international comparison. J Res Spec Educ Needs. 2015;15(4):276–84.

47. Čagran B, Schmidt M. Attitudes of Slovene teachers towards the inclusion of pupils with different types of special needs in primary school. Educ Stud [Internet]. 2011 May 1;37(2):171–95. Available from:

48. Graça J, Manuela M, Oliveira A, Milfont TL. Personality and Individual Di ff erences Why are women less likely to support animal exploitation than men? The mediating roles of social dominance orientation and empathy. Pers Individ Dif [Internet]. 2018;129:66–9. Available from:

49. Meral BF. Obstacles to special education for students with intellectual disabilities in Turkey : a brief report. Eur J Spec Needs Educ. 2015;30(1):93–105.

50. Batsiou S, Bebetsos E, Panteli P, Antoniou P. ttitudes and intention of Greek and Cypriot primary education teachers towards teaching pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools. Int J Incl Educ. 2008;12(2):201–19.

51. Loreman T, Earle C, Forlin C. The development of an instrument for measuring pre-service teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education. Int J Spec Educ. 2007;22(2):150–9.

52. Garnefski N, van Rood Y, de Roos C, Kraaij V. Relationships Between Traumatic Life Events, Cognitive Emotion Regulation Strategies, and Somatic Complaints. J Clin Psychol Med Settings [Internet]. 2017/05/15. 2017;24(2):144–51. Available from:

53. Mazzone A, Camodeca M, Cardone D, Merla A. Bullying Perpetration and Victimization in Early Adolescence : Physiological Response to Social Exclusion Bullying Perpetration and Victimization in Early Adolescence : Physiological Response to Social Exclusion Angela Mazzone * Marina Camodeca. Int J Dev Sci. 2017;121–30.

54. Giménez-Espert M del C, Prado-Gascó VJ. The role of empathy and emotional intelligence in nurses’ communication attitudes using regression models and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis models (fsQCA). J Clin Nurs [Internet]. 2018;27(13–14):2661–72. Available from:

55. Villanueva L, Montoya-Castilla I, Prado-Gasco V. The importance of trait emotional intelligence and feelings in the prediction of perceived and biological stress in adolescents: hierarchical regressions and fsQCA models. Stress. 2017 Jul;20(4):355–62. doi: 10.1080/10253890.2017.1340451 28595502

56. Eng S, Woodside AG. Configural analysis of the drinking man: Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analyses. Addict Behav [Internet]. 2012;37(4):541–3. Available from:

57. Legewie N. An Introduction to Applied Data Analysis with Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Forum Qual Soc Res [Internet]. 2013;14(3):1–45. Available from:

58. Ragin CC. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.; 2008.

59. Calabuig Moreno F, Prado-Gascó V, Crespo Hervás J, Núñez-Pomar J, Añó Sanz V. Predicting future intentions of basketball spectators using SEM and fsQCA. J Bus Res [Internet]. 2016;69(4):1396–400. Available from:

60. Muñiz J, Elosua P, Hambleton RK. Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests: Segunda edición. Psicothema. 2013;25(2):151–7.

61. Jolliffe D, Farrington DP. Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. J Adolesc. 2006 Aug;29(4):589–611. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010 16198409

62. Silván-Ferrero M del P, Bustillos A. Adaptación de la escala de Orientación a la Dominancia Social al castellano : validación de la Dominancia Grupal y la Oposición a la Igualdad como factores subyacentes Adaptation of The Social Dominance Orientation scale into Spanish: Validation of Group. Rev Psicol Soc. 2007;22(1):3–15.

63. Etchezahar E, Prado-Gascó V, Jaume L, Brussino S. Validación argentina de la Escala de Orientación a la Dominancia Social. Rev Latinoam Psicol [Internet]. 2014;46(1):35–43. Available from:

64. Boquera JM, Martínez-Rico G, Pérez-Campos C, Prado-Gascó VJ. Evaluación de eventos deportivos por el deportista con discapacidad: Aporte individual (Modelos de regresión) vs. Interacción (Qca). Rev Psicol del Deport. 2016;25(3):85–8.

65. Barton H, Beynon M. Do the citizens of Europe trust their police? Vol. 4, International Journal of Emergency Services. 2015. 65–85 p.

66. Felício J, Rodrigues J, Samagaio A. Corporate Governance and the Performance of Commercial Banks: A Fuzzy-set QCA Approach. J Small Bus Strateg. 2016;26(1):87–101.

67. Rey-Martí A, Ribeiro-Soriano D, Palacios-Marqués D. A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship. J Bus Res [Internet]. 2016;69(5):1651–5. Available from:

68. Schneider C, Wagemann C. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge University Press, editor. 2012.

69. Woodside AG. Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. J Bus Res [Internet]. 2013;66(4):463–72. Available from:

70. Claude R, Christopher R. Acq [Computer Programme]. Houston, TX: University of Houston-Downtown.; 2014.

71. Fiss PC. Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organizational Research. Acad Manag J. 2011;54(2):393–420.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12