Cognitive Empathy with the Person in the Ad

1. Abstract

The Cognitive Empathy with the Person in the Ad scale is a specialized, state-based psychometric instrument designed to quantify the situational perspective-taking and intellectual role-taking processes evoked in an observer when viewing a target individual depicted within advertising stimuli. Developed and empirically validated within contemporary marketing and consumer psychology research by Arango, Singaraju, and Niininen (2023), the scale operationalizes cognitive empathy as an immediate, context-dependent socio-cognitive reaction rather than a stable, dispositional personality trait. The instrument comprises three self-report items administered via a 7-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree), with an overall index derived from the unweighted arithmetic mean of all items.

Across empirical investigations evaluating humanitarian advertising, prosocial campaigns, and evaluations of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated charitable giving appeals, the instrument has demonstrated robust psychometric viability. Confirmatory factor analytic investigations establish strict unidimensionality, with high standardized factor loadings exceeding .80, composite reliability (CR) indices surpassing .85, and average variance extracted (AVE) values clearing established thresholds for convergent validity (AVE > .60). The scale demonstrates distinct discriminant validity against affective empathy, personal distress, perceived artificiality, and generalized narrative transportation, while exhibiting robust predictive validity regarding charitable donation intentions, positive brand attitudes, and prosocial engagement. By isolating the cognitive dimension of empathy—specifically mentalizing and perspective-taking—the instrument offers consumer researchers, behavioral economists, and advertising strategists a parsimonious, methodologically rigorous tool for dissecting the micro-mechanisms governing audience identification with human and synthetically rendered figures in media appeals.

2. Keywords

cognitive empathy, advertising psychology, perspective-taking, prosocial advertising, charitable giving, state empathy, consumer psychology, synthetic media, psychometrics, mentalizing

3. Authors

The scale was developed and operationalized by:

• Luis Arango — Department of Marketing, School of Business, Law and Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia. Focuses on consumer behavior, advertising appeals, emotional and cognitive processing of emerging media, and prosocial marketing.
• Stephen Pragasam Singaraju — School of Business and Management, RMIT University Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Specializes in digital marketing transformation, consumer-technology interactions, and prosocial consumer decision-making.
• Outi Niininen — Department of Management and Marketing, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; and School of Business, Law and Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of Technology. Expert in digital marketing communication, customer engagement, and ethical implications of automated technologies in advertising.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Cognitive Empathy with the Person in the Ad scale is to evaluate the degree to which an individual viewer actively reconstructs and understands the mental state, thoughts, circumstances, and internal viewpoint of a target subject represented inside a promotional or advocacy message. While empathy has long been recognized as a multifaceted psychological construct encompassing both emotional and cognitive branches, traditional psychometric tools—such as the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983)—predominantly gauge chronic, trait-level dispositions (e.g., general perspective-taking tendency). Such trait scales are systematically insensitive to acute, stimulus-induced shifts driven by creative advertising executions, visual framing, message narrative structure, or novel technical production paradigms.

In applied consumer psychology and humanitarian communication, eliciting empathy is a principal mechanism for bridging psychological distance between prospective donors and vulnerable individuals depicted in need. However, researchers have repeatedly documented that affective empathy (e.g., emotional resonance, shared suffering, or vicarious emotional arousal) can frequently trigger defensive cognitive avoidance, personal distress, or emotional fatigue when viewers feel overwhelmed by graphic depictions of hardship. In contrast, cognitive empathy facilitates an intellectualized comprehension of the victim’s lived reality, preserving cognitive resources necessary for deliberate decision-making, such as financial donation or sustained advocacy. The purpose of this scale is to isolate this precise cognitive mechanism, providing researchers with the diagnostic capacity to determine whether an advertisement successfully stimulates active mental simulation without confounding it with emotional overarousal.

The scale holds critical clinical, societal, and market-level utility. In research exploring non-profit communications, it serves as a critical mediator explaining how narrative framing impacts donation intentions, prosocial volunteering, and advocacy sharing. In commercial branding, it helps evaluate how storytelling involving brand mascots, everyday consumers, or corporate social responsibility (CSR) beneficiaries influences brand admiration and moral legitimacy. Furthermore, the scale addresses modern dilemmas surrounding emerging generative technologies. With the proliferation of generative artificial intelligence, hyper-realistic computational imagery, and virtual humans in marketing, scholars and ethicists require validated, non-burdensome instruments to ascertain whether synthetic personas can elicit equivalent levels of socio-cognitive perspective-taking relative to genuine human subjects, or whether algorithmic disclosure introduces psychological friction that suppresses cognitive empathy.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by this instrument is state cognitive empathy, directed specifically toward a depicted stimulus target. In classical social neuroscience and cognitive psychology, empathy is bifurcated into two primary, dissociable components: affective empathy (the vicarious sharing of emotional valence and physiological arousal) and cognitive empathy (the capacity to mentally represent, infer, and simulate another agent’s internal mental state, intentions, and subjective worldview, frequently termed Theory of Mind or mentalizing).

The scale under evaluation is intentionally operationalized as a unidimensional reflection of state-level cognitive empathy. It does not measure generalized empathic tendencies across lifetime relationships; rather, it assesses the acute activation of social-cognitive role-taking during or immediately following exposure to an advertising narrative. This construct involves three interrelated cognitive operations:

• Affective State Inference (Mental Simulation): The subjective ease with which an observer can project themselves into the inner emotional landscape of the depicted person, deducing what that individual is experiencing without necessarily experiencing the identical affect themselves. This represents the mental categorization of another person’s feelings.
• Decentering and Spatial/Psychological Transposition (“Putting oneself in their shoes”): The deliberate cognitive act of vacating one’s egocentric reference point to imagine oneself inhabiting the concrete physical, social, and structural realities faced by the target individual. This process attenuates fundamental attribution errors and bridges psychological distance.
• Subjective Epistemic Perspective-Taking: The cognitive framing operation wherein the observer views the depicted crisis, dilemma, or circumstance through the specific lens, perceptual constraints, and knowledge structure of the depicted persona.

A crucial theoretical boundary of this construct is its distinction from narrative transportation and identification. Narrative transportation describes an all-encompassing phenomenological immersion into a story world, where cognitive, emotional, and sensory faculties become unified in tracking plot developments. Identification represents an ontological merging of identity, where the audience member temporarily adopts the protagonist’s goals and traits as their own. In contrast, cognitive empathy retains clear self-other distinction (Batson et al., 1997); the observer recognizes that the person in the advertisement is an autonomous entity facing distinct challenges, yet deliberately executes the cognitive computation required to perceive the environment from that entity’s coordinates.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework underpinning this scale synthesizes classical social cognitive theory, Batson’s Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (1987), and modern cognitive neuroscientific models of social perception. Historically, social psychologists distinguished between two distinct instructional sets used to evoke empathy in experimental settings: “imagine-self” and “imagine-other.” When individuals are instructed or nudged to imagine how another person is feeling and what their perspective is (“imagine-other”), they primarily activate fronto-parietal executive control networks, medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), and temporoparietal junction (TPJ)—brain regions tightly coupled with deliberate mentalizing and cognitive perspective-taking. Conversely, “imagine-self” orientations or purely visceral appeals activate limbic regions such as the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex, often generating personal distress, which can redirect motivation toward self-oriented egoistic relief rather than altruism.

In consumer and advertising psychology, this distinction is modeled via Dual-Process and Dual-Path Empathy Frameworks (Bagozzi & Moore, 1994). When a message depicts a person in a situation of acute distress (e.g., famine, humanitarian displacement, medical hardship), the audience member engages in rapid cognitive appraisal. Cognitive empathy acts as an epistemic antecedent: before a viewer can experience genuine sympathy, perceived moral obligation, or warm-glow motivation to assist, they must first mentally represent the victim’s subjective experience. If an advertisement fails to evoke cognitive empathy—due to over-commercialization, poor visual storytelling, or uncanny valley effects arising from synthetic representations—the downstream motivational cascade halts.

Furthermore, the scale operates within the theoretical paradigm of Anthropomorphism and Social Attribution Theory (Epley et al., 2007). When consumers encounter targets in advertisements, they automatically assess the agency (capacity for intention, thought, and planning) and experience (capacity to feel pain and pleasure) of those targets. The Cognitive Empathy with the Person in the Ad scale directly operationalizes the viewer’s readiness to attribute rich internal cognitive-experiential states to the advertising subject. In the context of AI-generated imagery (Arango et al., 2023), if the audience detects synthetic artifacts or is explicitly informed of AI generation, they may perceive the target as devoid of authentic human experience, depressing cognitive perspective-taking and undermining subsequent willingness to donate.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Cognitive Empathy with the Person in the Ad scale has been established through multiple experimental and survey-based inquiries in consumer behavior literature, most prominently in the dual-study validation published by Arango, Singaraju, and Niininen (2023).

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by significant factor loadings and strong convergence among the three scale items. Across empirical evaluations involving over 700 experimental participants evaluating visual charitable appeals, all three items consistently exhibited completely standardized factor loadings above .85 (ranging from .87 to .94). The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) substantially exceeded the conservative benchmark of .50 (reported AVE values > .75), demonstrating that the majority of variance captured by the indicators represents the underlying latent cognitive empathy construct rather than measurement error.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was verified using both the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations. The square root of the AVE for the cognitive empathy construct systematically exceeded its bivariate correlations with related yet distinct constructs, including:

• Affective Empathy / Sympathy: While correlated ($r \approx .55$ to $.68$), indicating related prosocial resonance, HTMT values remained well below the critical cutoff of .85, confirming that intellectual perspective-taking is distinct from visceral emotional warmth.
• Ad Credibility and Perceived Authenticity: Cognitive empathy exhibited moderate positive associations ($r \approx .40$ to $.52$) with perceived authenticity of the ad, showing that while believable ads facilitate perspective-taking, the constructs do not overlap.
• Perceived Artificiality / Uncanny Valley Sensations: Negative correlations ($r \approx -.25$ to $-.38$) were observed, confirming that discomfort with artificiality impairs the ease with which viewers step into the shoes of the portrayed persona.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

The nomological validity of the scale is robust. In path modeling and mediation analyses, state cognitive empathy served as a direct and statistically significant mediator between message presentation (e.g., human-photographed vs. AI-generated imagery; emotional valence of copy) and downstream behavioral outcomes. Specifically, elevated cognitive empathy significantly predicted higher monetary donation allocations ($eta = .32, p < .001$), enhanced positive attitude toward the non-profit organization ($eta = .41, p < .001$), and greater likelihood of electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) sharing.

8. Reliability

The scale exhibits exceptionally high internal consistency reliability across diverse experimental conditions and participant demographics. In the foundational studies conducted by Arango et al. (2023):

• Cronbach’s Alpha ($lpha$): Reported values consistently exceed the standard psychometric threshold of .70, ranging between $lpha = .89$ and $lpha = .93$ across separate experimental studies (Study 1 and Study 2). This demonstrates that the three indicators are exceptionally cohesive in capturing the target latent variable.
• Composite Reliability (CR): To account for potential discrepancies in tau-equivalence, composite reliability coefficients were computed. Across samples, CR values ranged from .90 to .94, well above the .80 benchmark recommended for structural equation modeling.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-total correlations for each of the three indicators regularly surpass .75, indicating that removal of any single item would result in a reduction of the overall internal consistency coefficient.

Because the instrument is explicitly formulated to measure a transient, situation-induced psychological state (state cognitive empathy) elicited by exposure to a specific visual advertisement, traditional long-term test-retest reliability ($r_{tt}$) is theoretically inapplicable; an individual’s score is expected to vary systematically when exposed to different visual stimuli, differing framing techniques, or alternative advertising executions.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent structure of the scale has been rigorously tested using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) within maximum likelihood and robust estimation frameworks.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In initial scale calibration, principal axis factoring and principal component analysis with oblique (Promax) rotation extract a clean single-factor solution. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy consistently exceeds .80 (indicating high data suitability), and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity yields statistically significant results ($\chi^2, p < .001$). The single extracted factor accounts for over 78% to 83% of the total variance across observed indicators, with no secondary factors demonstrating eigenvalues greater than 0.45, confirming an unambiguous unidimensional architecture.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In structural equation modeling (SEM) verification, the single-factor model demonstrates exceptional fit to the empirical data. When estimated as a discrete measurement model, fit indices satisfy the most stringent thresholds established by Hu and Bentler (1999):

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $ge .99$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $ge .98$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $le .045$ ($90% \text{ CI } [0.000, 0.082]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $le .020$

Standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) are uniformly elevated and statistically significant ($p < .001$):

• Item 1 (“easily imagine what the person in the ad is feeling”): $lambda pprox .88 – .91$
• Item 2 (“easily put myself in the shoes of the person in the ad”): $lambda pprox .91 – .94$
• Item 3 (“easily see things from the perspective of the person in the ad”): $lambda pprox .89 – .93$

Measurement invariance testing across experimental cohorts (e.g., human-photographed stimuli versus AI-synthesized stimuli) demonstrates strict metric and scalar invariance, verifying that observed mean differences reflect genuine variations in the underlying construct rather than differential item functioning.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Self-report situational / state psychometric scale.
• Application: Experimental consumer research, advertising copy-testing, social marketing evaluation, and human-computer interaction studies.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or computer-assisted self-interview (CASI / online survey panels like Qualtrics, Prolific, MTurk).
• Total Number of Items: 3 items.
• Subscales / Dimensions: Unidimensional construct (State Cognitive Empathy).
• Response Format: 7-point Likert scale:
  1 = Strongly disagree
  2 = Disagree
  3 = Somewhat disagree
  4 = Neither agree nor disagree
  5 = Somewhat agree
  6 = Agree
  7 = Strongly agree
• Reverse-Scored Items: None. All items are positively keyed.
• Scoring Algorithm: The overall cognitive empathy index is computed as the unweighted arithmetic mean of the three completed items:
  $$\text{Cognitive Empathy} = \frac{\text{Item } 1 + \text{Item } 2 + \text{Item } 3}{3}$$
  Resulting scores range from 1.00 to 7.00, with higher scores reflecting greater ease and depth of situational perspective-taking.
• Completion Time: Approximately 30 to 45 seconds, making it ideal for inclusion in omnibus marketing experiments without inducing participant fatigue.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed and published in 2023 in the peer-reviewed Journal of Advertising by researchers Luis Arango, Stephen Pragasam Singaraju, and Outi Niininen. The original empirical research was documented in the article “Consumer Responses to AI-Generated Charitable Giving Ads.”

Licensing and Academic Access: As is customary for psychometric scales published within scholarly journals by academic researchers, the instrument is available for educational, non-commercial, and academic scientific research without licensing fees, provided proper bibliographic attribution is accorded to the original authors (Arango, Singaraju, & Niininen, 2023). Commercial marketing research enterprises seeking to integrate the instrument into proprietary copy-testing platforms or commercial testing suites should review the copyright policies of the publisher (Taylor & Francis / American Academy of Advertising) or contact the corresponding author for permissions.

12. References

• Arango, L., Singaraju, S. P., & Niininen, O. (2023). Consumer responses to AI-generated charitable giving ads. Journal of Advertising, 52(4), 486–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2023.2185795
• Bagozzi, R. P., & Moore, D. J. (1994). Public service advertisements: Emotions and empathy guide prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800105
• Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 65–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60412-8
• Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 751–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297237008
• Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
• Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

13. Items of the Scale