ory was not discussed in relation to the YCEM. The third session took place 1 week after the second, to assess whether there would be any long-term effects of the story on empathy. The story was not mentioned by the experimenter, and the YCEM was administered a third time, and a third score was recorded. Results Mean empathy scores for baseline, immediate, and delayed test conditions are shown in Table 1. Higher means indicate more appropriate expressions of empathy. One-way repeated measure ANOVAS were used to analyze the differences between the different experimental conditions for each vignette. For all items, means were higher for cognitive than for affective empathy. Storytelling produced a significant effect in cognitive anger over the three conditions (F (df 2,32) = 4.216, p * .05). Post hoc paired t-tests (alpha set at .017 according to Bonferroni procedure) revealed a significant increase in empathy scores from the baseline (M = 3.0588, SD = .5557) to the immediate test condition (M = 3.4706, SD = .5145, p * .017). The same test also revealed marginal significance in the change of mean scores from the story condition to the second baseline test (M = 3.1765, SD = .3930, p = .056). These results indicate that storytelling did increase the empathy expressed by participants. No significant changes in mean scores were found in the remaining seven questionnaire items, although an interesting trend was revealed. There appeared to be a further effect of storytelling for several more questionnaire items aside from affective anger. For cognitive sadness, affective sadness, and affective fear, mean scores increased from the baseline to the immediate condition, although not significantly (Table 1). These increased means indicate a definite trend of more appropriate expressions of empathy when storytelling is employed. In three of the eight questionnaire measures, cognitive fear, as well as both affective and cognitive happiness, mean score...
