Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI)
Based on Mark Davis's IRI Research
Map your empathy across four dimensions: how you take others' perspectives, feel concern for them, react to their distress, and engage with fictional characters.
Enter Your IRI Subscale Totals
Input the subscale totals from an IRI you completed elsewhere.
Which scoring range did your version use?
Your Empathy Profile
Based on your 28 responses
Explore Each Subscale
Keep in mind
- This is a self-report profile, not a diagnostic test. It shows tendencies, not abilities.
- Personal Distress is not "better empathy." High PD reflects emotional reactivity, not caring.
- Your results may shift with stress, sleep, or context. Treat this as a snapshot, not a fixed trait.
- These are research-inspired items, not the official copyrighted IRI. Scores are indicative, not directly comparable to published IRI norms.
The Research Behind This Tool
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index framework is one of the most widely used approaches to measuring individual differences in empathy.
From the Research
"Such instruments should provide separate assessments of 1) the cognitive, perspective-taking ... and 2) the emotional reactivity of such individuals."
— Davis, M.H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Mark Davis developed the IRI in 1980 to move past the idea that empathy is a single thing you have more or less of. Instead, he proposed that empathy involves at least four separable tendencies. This was a shift in the field.
The Four Facets
Self-oriented (left) vs. Other-oriented (right)
PT and EC are typically considered the most "interpersonally central" facets. PD captures stress reactivity around others' pain. FS reflects engagement with stories and characters, and is the least directly social of the four.
From the Research
"Davis' Interpersonal Reactivity Index ... is the most widely and frequently used scale to measure individual differences ..."
— De Corte, K. et al. (2007). Measuring empathic tendencies: Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the IRI. Psychologica Belgica, 47, 235-260.
The official IRI has been tested across dozens of studies and languages. Here is a summary of key reliability findings from published research:
From the Research
"Each scale consists of 7 items, rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = does not describe me well, 4 = describes me very well)."
— De Corte, K. et al. (2007). Measuring empathic tendencies. Psychologica Belgica, 47, 235-260.
Factor structure evidence is mixed across different populations and languages. The four-factor model fits well in many samples, but some studies find alternative or higher-order structures, especially when reverse-worded items cluster together as a "method factor."
This tool is a research-inspired alternative to the official Interpersonal Reactivity Index. We wrote all 28 items from scratch. Here is why and how.
Why not the original items?
The official IRI items are permission-controlled. A clinical research form from the University of Washington states the items are "reproduced by permission of the author" and that "further copying or distribution without author's permission is prohibited." We chose to write original items rather than reproduce copyrighted material.
How we built this version
- Structure preserved: 4 subscales (PT, EC, PD, FS), 7 items each, matching the canonical IRI framework
- Scoring aligned: 0-4 response scale, consistent with the most common published IRI format
- Reverse-wording limited: 2 reverse-scored items per subscale (8 total), reduced from typical counts because psychometric research shows reverse-worded items can create method factors that distort results
- Items interleaved: Subscales are mixed across screens to reduce obvious theming and response set patterns
- Subscale-forward reporting: We report four separate subscale scores, not a single "empathy total." Research warns that collapsing IRI scores into a single number is poorly supported by the measurement model
From the Research
"For males, the correlations ranged from .61 to .79, and for females from .62 to .81."
— Davis, M.H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Test-retest correlations from the original IRI development work, showing temporal stability of empathy-related tendencies.
What this means for your scores
Because these are newly written items, your scores are not directly comparable to published IRI norms. Treat your results as an indicative empathy profile rather than an equivalent IRI score. We plan to collect anonymous response data and publish distribution statistics and reliability estimates as our sample grows.
Related Assessments
Empathy connects to several other psychological constructs. These tools measure related dimensions.
Common Questions
No. The official IRI was developed by Mark H. Davis (1980, 1983). This is an independently written empathy assessment that uses the same four-factor framework (perspective-taking, empathic concern, personal distress, fantasy) but with all-original item wording. Scores are not directly comparable to published IRI norms.
Both use the same structure: 28 items across four subscales (PT, EC, PD, FS), scored on a 0-4 scale. The key difference is that our items are written from scratch rather than reproducing Davis's original wording. The official IRI is available from Mark Davis's page at Eckerd College for research use with permission.
About This Tool
This empathy profile assessment is a free educational tool. It is not affiliated with the official Interpersonal Reactivity Index.
This tool uses original items inspired by the four-factor empathy framework developed by Mark H. Davis (1980, 1983). It preserves the structure (PT, EC, PD, FS subscales, 7 items each, 0-4 scoring) but all item wording was written independently. The official IRI items are permission-controlled and are not reproduced here. This tool is not the official Interpersonal Reactivity Index and results are not directly comparable to published IRI norms.
This measures self-reported empathy-related tendencies. It does not measure actual empathic accuracy, real-world helping behaviour, or diagnose any condition. It does not diagnose autism, psychopathy, narcissism, or any disorder. Personal Distress is a stress-reactivity measure, not a sign of low or high empathy. Scores reflect tendencies with tradeoffs, not moral qualities. If your results concern you, consider speaking with a mental health professional.
- Davis, M.H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126. DOI
- Davis, M.H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85. PDF
- De Corte, K. et al. (2007). Measuring empathic tendencies. Psychologica Belgica, 47, 235-260. DOI
- Lucas-Molina, B. et al. (2017). Dimensional structure and measurement invariance of the IRI across gender. Psicothema, 29, 590-595. DOI
- Wang, Y. et al. (2020). Investigation on the rationality of IRI scoring approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 11:1086. DOI
- Fernandes de Lima, F. & Osório, F.L. (2021). Empathy: Assessment instruments and psychometric quality. Frontiers in Psychology, 12:781346. DOI