Teacher Empathy and Inclusive Education: the Moderating Role of Emotional Self-efficacy and Gender.

Teacher Empathy and Inclusive Education: the Moderating Role of Emotional Self-efficacy and Gender. | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Teacher Empathy and Inclusive Education: the Moderating Role of Emotional Self-efficacy and Gender. Federica Graziano, Sofia Mastrokoukou, Alessandro Monchietto, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3999977/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 29 Sep, 2024 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The role of teacher empathy is recognized as a key factor in improving teacher-student interaction, motivation and academic performance. Despite the importance of teacher empathy, its role in promoting inclusive education is still largely unknown. High levels of empathy are not necessarily associated with greater ability to implement inclusive education, as they can lead to excessive emotional engagement and stress, which negatively affect teachers' abilities. Therefore, the present study explored whether the relationship between high empathy and perceived ability to implement inclusive education could be moderated by other variables, such as emotional self-efficacy and gender. A large sample of Italian support teachers (N=739; M age =37.7; females= 86.9%) was recruited for this study. We found that higher levels of empathy were related to higher levels of self-efficacy in inclusive education, especially when levels of emotional self-efficacy were higher. This relationship was only found for female teachers. The results contribute to knowledge about the role of teachers' empathy for inclusion as well as the moderating role of the ability to regulate negative emotions. The study has implications for pre-service teacher education and in-service teacher training. Biological sciences/Psychology Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences support teacher inclusive education emotional self-efficacy empathy gender differences Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Empathy is defined as “the understanding of a person from their frame of reference rather than one’s own, or the vicarious experiencing of that person’s feelings, perceptions, and thoughts” (APA Dictionary, 2018). Empathy is a multidimensional construct that includes affective and cognitive components. The cognitive component refers to the ability to understand another person’s perspective in a given situation, while the affective component involves feeling warmth and concern for others and sharing another person’s emotions [1]. Empathy is recognized as a core competency for people working in relational and caring professions, such as physicians, nurses, teachers and educators [2]. In particular, empathy in teachers is increasingly recognized as a critical element in improving teacher-student interactions as well as in elevating student outcomes across academic, motivational, and psychosocial dimensions [3]. This multifaceted construct, encompassing cognitive and affective domains, is central to understanding and responding to students' nuanced experiences, thereby creating a supportive and effective learning atmosphere [4,5]. The importance of empathy extends beyond individual interactions and impacts the broader educational landscape by promoting social justice and understanding of students’ diverse backgrounds [6]. Empathic teachers are not just facilitators of content, but rather advocates and facilitators of student engagement and development [7]. Empathy is therefore an essential part of the teaching-learning process, especially in situations where learners are experiencing difficulties and for which inclusive education is required. Inclusive education, as defined in General Comment No. 4 Article 24 [8], is a system in which students of all abilities, including those with disabilities, learn together in the same environment, adapting the system to individual needs, rather than isolating or integrating students without adequate support. It emphasizes quality education for all and requires system-wide changes to ensure full participation and optimal outcomes for every student. The few studies on teacher empathy and inclusive education emphasize that higher teacher empathy is associated with more positive attitudes towards students with disabilities [9,10,11], and attitudes are known to be an important predictor of behavioral intentions [12]. Teacher empathy, then, appears to be one of the factors that promote inclusion, but it is also a skill that is constantly challenged. Teachers working with students with special educational needs (SEN) (understood as learning disabilities, physical impairments and mental disorders) are exposed to an extremely stressful environment as they are confronted with a high level of responsibility towards students, the uncertainty of being able to meet their needs, personal frustration and the need for continuous professional development [13,14]. Maintaining relationships with families, educators and healthcare professionals can be another source of stress [15]. Being empathic in these circumstances can be associated with suffering and personal stress, especially if the person is overwhelmed by the other person's negative emotions [1]. Excessive emotional identification with other people’s suffering can lead to a state of exhaustion known as empathy fatigue [16] or compassion fatigue [17], which in turn is related to stress and burnout in caring professions. The few studies involving teachers showed that high levels of empathy were associated with stress in both mainstream and special school teachers [18] and that the affective aspect of empathy in particular was a predictor of teacher stress [19]. Teachers dealing with students with special educational needs are at risk of developing empathy fatigue [16], especially when dealing with students with mental health problems [20]. These studies suggest that high levels of empathy are not necessarily associated with greater ability to implement inclusive education, as it can lead to excessive emotional engagement and stress, which negatively impacts teachers' abilities. Therefore, the present study investigated whether the relationship between high empathy and perceived ability to implement inclusive education could be moderated by other variables such as emotional self-efficacy and gender. Emotional self-efficacy is the perceived ability to regulate and express one's emotions [21]. In particular, self-efficacy in dealing with negative emotions refers to the belief that one is able to improve negative emotional states and avoid being overwhelmed by emotions such as anger, irritability, dejection and discouragement [22]. Emotional self-efficacy has been shown to counteract the negative effects of high levels of empathy [23], although its role in teachers has not yet been investigated. Finally, due to previous evidence suggesting gender differences in the variables of interest, with women generally reporting higher empathy [24] and lower emotional self-efficacy [23], gender was considered in the present study as a second moderator of the relationship between teacher empathy and perceived ability to implement inclusive education, in addition to emotional self-efficacy. In sum, the present study had the following aims: 1. to investigate the relationships between teacher empathy and self-efficacy in implementing inclusive education and the potential moderating role of emotional self-efficacy. Higher levels of empathy were expected to be related to higher levels of self-efficacy for inclusive education, especially when levels of emotional self-efficacy are higher. 2. to investigate whether gender further moderates the relationships between empathy, emotional self-efficacy and self-efficacy in implementing inclusive education. This analysis was exploratory in nature and no specific hypotheses were formulated (Figure 1). Insert Figure 1 Methods Procedure Teachers were recruited on a voluntary basis from among those enrolled in a graduate university course on topics related to the activities of the support teacher and inclusive education. In Italy, students with SEN are integrated into regular classes at all levels of education, avoiding segregation in special schools or separate classes. Support teachers are specialized educators who not only support individual students with SEN, but also improve the learning environment for the whole class, addressing both individual needs and collective challenges. Inclusion criteria of this study were being a support teacher with at least one year of work experience and currently teaching in a primary or secondary school (both middle and high). Data collection was conducted at the beginning of the academic year (October 2023) before the start of classes. After providing informed consent, all participants completed an anonymous online questionnaire through the LimeSurvey platform. Only those who signed the informed consent were allowed to complete the questionnaire. The questionnaire was anonymous, and respondents' IP was not stored. Participants did not receive benefits for participating in the study. This study followed ethical guidelines of the Italian Association for Psychology (AIP) set forth regarding informed consent, data confidentiality, and voluntary participation. It was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the University of [blinded] (Prot. N. 0513134). Participants A convenience sample of 756 support teachers from Northern Italy participated in the study, with 739 responses considered valid. Most participants were female (86.9%, N=642; 13.1% male, N=97), reflecting the current Italian gender distribution of teachers (Colombo & Barabanti, 2020 [25]; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2023 [26]). They were aged between 22 and 62 (M age =37.7, SD =8.4). 246 (33.3%) were working in primary schools and 493 (67.12%) in secondary schools (middle schools=199, 26.9%; high schools=294, 39.8%). The average years of teaching experience was 3.7 years ( SD =2.5, range 1-24 years). In terms of educational qualification, most participants hold a bachelor's degree (N=625, 84.8%), the remaining a diploma (N=78, 10.6%), or a postgraduate degree (N=34, 4.6%). Measures The survey used in this study had four sections: (1) demographic information, (2) Empathy Questionnaire, (3) Emotional self-efficacy Questionnaire, and (4) Self-efficacy to implement inclusive education Questionnaire. Demographic information We asked participants to report their demographic characteristics, such as gender, age, educational qualification, and professional variables, such as the type of school they currently teach and years of service as support teachers. Empathy Teachers were administered a brief form of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index [27] derived from a widely used standardized self-report measure of disposition to empathic responsiveness [1]. For the present study, three subdimensions were considered, namely Empathic Concern (EC) (e.g., item “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me”), Personal Distress (PD) (e.g., “In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill-at-ease”), and Perspective Taking (PT) (e.g., Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place). Each subscale is composed of 4 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (it does not describe me at all) to 5 (it describes me very well) (total 12 items, range 12-60, Cronbach's alpha in the present study = 0.77). For the final analysis, we used the total score of Empathy. Emotional self-efficacy Teachers completed the Multidimensional Negative Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale [22]. The scale is composed of 15 items that evaluate the perceived ability to regulate negative affect (anger, sadness, fear, shame, guilt) (e.g., item, “How able do you feel not let yourself become overcome with fear when you are threatened?”), rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not able at all) to 5 (very able) (range 15-75, Cronbach's alpha in the present study = 0.79). Teacher self-efficacy to implement inclusive education Teachers completed the attitudes toward Inclusive Education For All questionnaire (IEFA) [29], which evaluates both attitudes toward inclusion and self-efficacy in implementing inclusive education. For the present study, only the subdimension of self-efficacy for inclusive education was considered: the scale is composed of 9 items, evaluating the perceived ability to implement inclusive strategies (e.g., “How able do you feel to accommodate learning tasks to respond to the individual needs of all students?”) and managing students’ behaviors in the classroom (e.g., “How able do you feel to control disruptive behavior in the classroom?”). Consistent with the definition of an inclusive school, the items in the IEFA do not refer to students with SEN or other categories but to students in the whole class. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not able at all) to 5 (very able) (range 9-45, Cronbach's alpha in the present study = 0.78). Data Analysis The percentage of missing data for the study variables was less than 10% and the Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test [30] showed non significant results for all the study variables; thus, missing were imputed in SPSS using the Expectation-Maximization (EM) procedure. Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations among the study variables, have been calculated. The hypothesized three-way interaction model was tested through the PROCESS SPSS macro (Model 3) [31]. Empathy was entered in the regression model as the independent variable, self-efficacy to implement inclusive education as the dependent variable, whereas emotional self-efficacy and gender as first and second moderators, respectively. Years of teaching were entered as covariates. We tested all 2-way interactions and the 3-way interaction. Continuous variables were mean-centered. The statistical significance of the moderation effect was evaluated through a bootstrapping procedure (95% confidence intervals with 5000 bootstrap samples). Confidence intervals that do not contain zero indicate a statistically significant effect. To interpret significant interactions, a simple slope analysis was performed, testing the relationship between the independent (empathy) and the dependent variable (self-efficacy to implement inclusive education) at low (mean -1 sd) and high (mean +1 sd) levels of the moderator (emotional self-efficacy) in the two groups (males vs females). All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS Statistics 29. Results Descriptives Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables are reported in Table 1 . Table 1 Bivariate correlations between study variables (N = 739). Variables M (SD) or % 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. Gender F = 86.9% — 2. Age 37.7 (8.4) 0.04 — 3. Teaching experience 3.7 (2.5) -0.05 0.35** — 4. Empathy 35.8 (6.4) -0.02 -0.12** -0.09* — 5. Emotional self-efficacy 28.8 (5.1) 0.23** 0.14** 0.02 -0.05 — 6. Self-efficacy for inclusion 31.9 (4.3) 0.02 0.04 0.10** 0.16** 0.39** Note . Gender (1 = male, 0 = female); * p < .05, *** p < .001. Insert Table 1 A positive correlation was found between teachers’ empathy and self-efficacy in relation to inclusive education (r = 0.1, p < .01), suggesting that teachers who have higher levels of empathy tend to have greater confidence in their abilities to implement inclusive education practices. Similarly, emotional self-efficacy showed a positive correlation with self-efficacy for inclusive education (r = 0.24, p < .01). This finding suggests that teachers who believe in their ability to manage emotions effectively are more likely to feel able to create and maintain inclusive classrooms. Gender differences were also examined, and female teachers were found to have a slightly higher correlation between empathy and self-efficacy in inclusive classrooms compared to male teachers (r = 0.10, p <. .05). In addition, the correlation between emotional self-efficacy and self-efficacy in inclusive education appeared to be stronger for female teachers (r = 0.22, p < .05). Insert Table 2 Table 2 Mean differences by gender and years of teaching experience in study variables (t-test). Group M( SD ) Comparison Group M( SD ) t (df) Cohen’s d Self-efficacy for inclusion Male 32.12 (4.61) Female 31.86 (4.24) 0.57 (739) 0.06 Empathy Male 35.48 (6.11) Female 35.87 (6.42) -0.56 (739) -0.06 Emotional Self-efficacy** Male 31.83 (5.02) Female 28.33 (4.93) 6.51 (739) 0.71 Self-efficacy for inclusion* With more teaching experience 32.39 (4.27) With less teaching experience 31.55 (4.25) 2.69 (739) 0.20 Empathy* With more teaching experience 35.13 (6.32) With less teaching experience 36.43 (6.32) -2.80 (739) 0.21 Emotional Self-efficacy With more teaching experience 29.03 (5.29) With less teaching experience 28.64 (4.94) 1.05 (739) 0.08 Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01 Table 2 details the outcomes of independent samples t-tests assessing mean differences in psychological constructs relative to support teachers’ gender and years of teaching experience. For self-efficacy in inclusive education, the analysis revealed no significant difference between male ( M = 32.12, SD = 4.61) and female ( M = 31.86, SD = 4.24) support teachers; the result of the t-test was t (739) = 0.57, p < .05, with an effect size d = 0.06. Empathy also showed no significant differences between male ( M = 35.48, SD = 6.11) and female ( M = 35.87, SD = 6.42) teachers, as shown by t (739) = -0.56, p < .05, and d = -0.06. A significant gender difference was observed in emotional self-efficacy, with male support teachers reporting significantly higher values ( M = 31.83, SD = 5.02) than female teachers ( M = 28.33, SD = 4.93), resulting in t (739) = 6.51, p < .01 and a medium to large effect size d = 0.71. Regarding teaching experience, a small but statistically significant difference was found in self-efficacy for inclusive education, with more experienced support teachers scoring higher ( M = 32.39, SD = 4.27) compared to their less experienced colleagues ( M = 31.55, SD = 4.25), t (739) = 2.69, p < .05, d = 0.20. Empathy was higher among the less experienced support teachers ( M = 36.43, SD = 6.32) than among those with more experience ( M = 35.13, SD = 6.32), t(739) = -2.80, p < .05, d = -0.21. There was no significant effect of teaching experience on emotional self-efficacy, as shown by t (739) = 1.05, p < .05 and d = 0.08, with similar values for more experienced ( M = 29.03, SD = 5.29) and less experienced ( M = 28.64, SD = 4.94) support teachers. Moderation Analyses To predict self-efficacy for inclusive education, empathy was entered into the regression model as the independent variable, while emotional self-efficacy and gender were incorporated as the first and second moderators, respectively. Additionally, years of teaching experience was included as a covariate to adjust for its potential influence on the outcome variable. The analysis examines interaction effects, including 2-way interactions (empathy × emotional self-efficacy, empathy × gender, and emotional self-efficacy × gender) and a 3-way interaction (empathy × emotional self-efficacy × gender), to discern the moderation effects on self-efficacy for inclusive education. Results are shown in Table 3 . Table 3 Predictors of teacher efficacy for inclusive education (regression analysis) Bootstrapping CI 95% b se t p LL (lower limit) UL (upper limit) Intercept 31.33 0.26 120.3 <0.0001 30.8 31.8 Empathy 0.13 0.02 5.74 < 0.0001 0.09 0.18 Emotional Self-efficacy 0.32 0.03 10.36 <0.0001 0.26 0.38 Gender -1.04 0.48 -2.16 0.0306 -1.98 -0.09 Teaching experience 0.18 0.05 3.24 0.0012 0.07 0.29 Empathy x Emotional Self-efficacy 0.01 0.004 2.73 0.0065 0.003 0.02 Empathy x Gender 0.05 0.08 0.64 0.5200 -0.11 0.22 Emotional Self-efficacy x Gender 0.08 0.08 1.03 0.3019 -0.07 0.25 Empathy x Emotional Self-efficacy x Gender -0.02 0.02 -2.19 0.0288 -0.05 − 0.002 Insert Table 3 Significant coefficients for empathy and emotional self-efficacy highlight their contribution to self-efficacy for inclusive education. Specifically, empathy is associated with self-efficacy for inclusive education, with a coefficient of 0.1375 ( p < .0001, 95% CI [0.0904, 0.1845]). Emotional self-efficacy also shows a significant positive effect (b = 0.3255, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.2638, 0.3872]). The interaction between empathy and emotional self-efficacy reveals a significant moderation effect (b = 0.0119, p = .0065, 95% CI [0.0033, 0.0205]). Moreover, the 3-way interaction among empathy, emotional self-efficacy, and gender is significant (b = -0.0283, p = .0288, 95% CI [-0.0537, -0.0029]), indicating the relationship between empathy and self-efficacy for inclusive education is influenced by both emotional self-efficacy and gender. Gender is found to affect self-efficacy for inclusive education significantly (b = -1.0424, p = .0306, 95% CI [-1.9870, -0.0978]), with males reporting lower levels of self-efficacy for inclusive education than females. The 3-way interaction term slightly increases the explained variance of the model with a R-square change of 0.0052, F (1,730) = 4.79, p = 0.028. The R-square of the final model is 0.2157, indicating that approximately 21.57% of the variance in self-efficacy for inclusive education is accounted for by the model, F (8, 730) = 25.0990, p < 0.0001. The test of simple slopes indicates that the interaction between empathy and emotional self-efficacy is significant, specifically when considering the gender variable, with a notable impact observed for females. Specifically, for females with higher levels of emotional self-efficacy, increased empathy is significantly associated with higher self-efficacy for inclusive education (b = -0.0283, p = 0.0288, 95% CI = [-0.0537, -0.0029]) (Fig. 2 ). Insert Fig. 2 Discussion The present study investigated the relationship between teacher empathy and self-efficacy in inclusive education in a large sample of Italian support teachers. In addition, the moderating role of emotional self-efficacy and gender was explored. We found that higher levels of empathy were related to higher self-efficacy for inclusive education, especially when the perceived ability to regulate negative emotions was higher. This relationship was only found for female teachers. Contrary to findings in the existing literature, empathy levels in our study did not differ by gender; however, consistent with previous research, emotional self-efficacy was found to be higher in males. Longer teaching experience was associated with lower empathy scores, suggesting a possible increase in the capacity for emotional detachment or alternatively defensive disengagement. This observation raises the question of whether prolonged contact with the profession and possibly also with the associated relationship stresses could lead to a strategic reduction in empathic engagement as a form of self-protection. The literature has found [ 16 , 17 ] that prolonged exposure to stressful relational experiences, such as those experienced by support teachers, reduces professional empathic engagement. This reduction could be interpreted as a defense mechanism, but could also indicate an improved ability of experienced teachers to moderate their emotional engagement. This moderation allows for the maintenance of a basic level of emotional empathy while protecting against exaggeration. This alternative interpretation is consistent with the finding of increased emotional self-efficacy in experienced teachers. It can be postulated that the ability to regulate negative emotions can effectively reduce the overall perception of empathy. This diminished perception does not necessarily imply a lack of empathic ability, but rather may reflect a sophisticated balancing act in which emotional self-regulation ensures that empathy remains a sustainable professional practice. Results of the moderation model expand on previous findings [ 9 , 10 , 11 ] showing that empathy can foster the implementation of an inclusive approach to education especially when teachers feel able to regulate negative emotions. As expected, empathy has become a core element that contributes to self-efficacy in the field of inclusive education. The significant positive correlation underscores the prominent role of empathic dispositions in fostering a school environment conducive to inclusion. This conclusion is consistent with previous research showing that empathy for students' diverse needs and perspectives is essential for a successful inclusive learning environment [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 32 ]. Emotional self-efficacy was also found to be a significant predictor of self-efficacy in inclusive education. This finding is consistent with the theoretical framework which states that in inclusive contexts, teachers' beliefs regarding their ability to cope with emotional difficulties and maintain psychological resilience are essential [ 33 , 34 ]. The analysis also revealed a significant interaction between empathy and emotional self-efficacy, indicating a moderation effect. This interaction suggests that the effect of empathy on self-efficacy in inclusive education is dependent on the level of emotional self-efficacy. This means that the positive effect of empathy on teachers' self-efficacy in inclusive education can be enhanced by emotional self-efficacy, highlighting the potential synergistic effects of empathy and emotional self-efficacy in improving inclusivity. Furthermore, the three-way interaction between empathy, emotional self-efficacy, and gender introduced a complex layer to the model, suggesting that the combined influence of empathy and emotional self-efficacy on self-efficacy towards inclusive education differs across genders. In particular, female teachers feel more able to apply inclusive education when they not only have high levels of empathy but also report higher levels of emotional self-efficacy. This pattern suggests that the key factor that can help or hinder the translation of empathy into meaningful inclusion practices, particularly for female teachers, is the ability to manage negative emotions. Limitations The study is subject to some limitations that warrant careful consideration while providing valuable insights into the factors that influence self-efficacy for inclusive education in the teaching profession. First, the generalizability of the results to the broader target population is limited by the reliance on the volunteer participant pool. This limitation is an indication that the conclusions of this study should be taken with caution when extending to other sample sizes. Second, the limitations of causal inference from observed relationships are due to the cross-sectional design of the study. The snapshot presented in this design provides useful correlational results, but does not provide insight into the trajectory of these variables. Longitudinal studies are therefore urgently needed to more clearly determine causal relationships and to confirm the results of the current study in a temporally extended setting. Third, we did not examine the actual inclusive behaviors implemented by teachers in the classroom, so future studies should include measures of these behaviors. In addition, the study's focus on a single cultural context may preclude its applicability to different educational systems, particularly due to differences in national legislation and policies regarding opportunities for inclusion. In applying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [ 8 ], Italy is one of the few countries worldwide attempting to fully realize the concept of inclusive education [ 35 ], and this relates specifically to the context of the study. In order to explore the generality of the proposed relationships and account for contextual differences in inclusive educational practice, future research efforts should aim to replicate this study and extend it to a diverse socio-cultural setting. Implications Despite these limitations, the study has implications for pre-service teacher education and in-service teacher training. The study supports the integration of empathy and emotional self-efficacy into pre-service and in-service teacher training programs to provide them with the emotional and empathic skills needed to promote an inclusive learning environment. By managing their negative emotions in classroom, teachers can be empowered to engage more deeply with their students and thus promote inclusion. The observed moderating effect of gender leads us to reconsider the dynamics of teacher education programs and calls for a tailored approach which takes into account gender specificities and views on inclusion in the classroom. A final consideration concerns training aimed at improving empathy for inclusive teaching. These programs could put teachers, especially female teachers, at greater risk of emotional overload if they are not coupled with activities to promote emotional self-efficacy. Declarations Author Contribution FG contributed to the definition of study design, performed the statistical analysis, interpreted data and wrote the manuscript, SM performed the statistical analysis, interpreted data and wrote the manuscript, AM supervised data collection and contributed to manuscript writing, CM supervised the study, EC contributed to the definition of study design and data interpretation and supervised the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. References Davis, M. H. The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: a multidimensional approach. J. Pers. 51 , 167–184 (1983). Nembhard, I. M., David, G., Ezzeddine. I., Betts. D. & Radin, J. A. A systematic review of research on empathy in health care. Health Serv. Res. 58 , 250-263 (2023). Aldrup, K., Carstensen, B. & Klusmann, U. Is empathy the key to effective teaching? A systematic review of its association with teacher-student interactions and student outcomes. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 34 , 1177–1216 (2022). Tettegah, S. & Anderson, C. J. Pre-service teachers’ empathy and cognitions: statistical analysis of text data by graphical models. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 32 , 48–82 (2007). Goroshit M. & Hen, M. Teachers’ empathy: can it be predicted by self-efficacy? Teachers Teach. 22 , 805–818 (2016). Bullough, R. V. Empathy, teaching dispositions, social justice and teacher education. Teachers Teach.: Theory Pract. 25 , 507–522 (2019). Swan, P. & Riley, P. Social connection: empathy and mentalization for teachers. Pastoral Care Educ. 33 , 220–233 (2015). CRPD Committee. General Comment No. 4 Article 24: Right to Inclusive Education. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/GC.aspx (2016). Barr, J. J. The relationship between teachers’ empathy and perceptions of school culture. Educ. Stud. 37 , 365-369 (2011). Navarro-Mateu, D., Franco-Ochoa, J., Valero-Moreno, S. & Prado-Gascó, V. To be or not to be an inclusive teacher: are empathy and social dominance relevant factors to positive attitudes towards inclusive education? PloS one 14 , e0225993. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225993 (2019). Parchomiuk, M. Teacher empathy and attitudes towards individuals with disabilities. Int. J. Disabil., Dev. Educ. 66 , 56-69 (2019). Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 , 179-211 (1991). Kokkinos & C. M., Davazoglou, A. M. Special education teachers under stress: evidence from a Greek national study. Educ. Psychol. 29 , 407–424 (2009). Crispel, O. & Kasperski, R. The impact of teacher training in special education on the implementation of inclusion in mainstream classrooms. Int. J. Incl. Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1600590 (2019). Bevel, M. & Altrogge, G. Preparing future administrators and teachers: developing empathy for individuals with disabilities. J. Philos. & Hist. Educ. 60 , 52–56 (2010). Klimecki, O. & Singer, T. Empathic distress fatigue rather than compassion fatigue? Integrating findings from empathy research in psychology and social neuroscience. In Pathological Altruism (eds. Oakley, B., Knafo, A., Madhavan, G. & Wilson, D. S.) 368–383 (Oxford University Press, 2012). Sinclair, S., Raffin-Bouchal, S., Venturato, L., Mijovic-Kondejewski, J. & Smith-MacDonald, L. Compassion fatigue: a meta-narrative review of the healthcare literature. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 69 , 9-24 (2017). Vučinić, V., Stanimirovic, D., Gligorović, M., Jablan, B. & Marinović, M. Stress and empathy in teachers at general and special education schools. Int. J. Disabil., Dev. & Educ. 69 , 533–549 (2022). Platsidou, M. & Agaliotis, I. Does empathy predict instructional assignment-related stress? A study in special and general education teachers. Int. J. Disabil., Dev. & Educ. 64 , 57-75 (2017). Ormiston, H. E., Nygaard, M. A. & Apgar, S. A systematic review of secondary traumatic stress and compassion fatigue in teachers. School Ment. Health 14 , 802–817 (2022). Bandura, A. Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M. & Pastorelli, C. Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Dev. 74 , 769–782 (2003). Caprara, G.V., Di Giunta, L., Pastorelli, C. & Eisenberg, N. Mastery of negative affect: a hierarchical model of emotional self-efficacy beliefs. Psychol. Assess. 25 , 105-116 (2013). Tully, E. C. Ames, A. M., Garcia, S. E. & Donohue, M. R. Quadratic associations between empathy and depression as moderated by emotion dysregulation. J. Psychol. 150 , 15–35 (2016). Rochat, M. J. Sex and gender differences in the development of empathy. J. Neurosci. Res. 101 , 718-729 (2023). Colombo, M. & Barabanti, P. Female hegemony among Italian educational professionals. In The Education of Gender. The Gender of Education. Sociological Research in Italy (eds. Colombo, M., & Salmieri, L.) 43-60 (Associazione Per Scuola Democratica, 2020). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators . (OECD Publishing, 2023). https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en Ingoglia, S., Lo Coco, A. & Albiero, P. Development of a brief form of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (B–IRI). J. Pers. Assess. 98 , 461-471 (2016). Kielblock, S. Inclusive Education for All: Development of an instrument to measure the teachers’ attitudes . Justus Liebig University, Giessen (2018). http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2018/13634/ Vergani, F. & Kielblock, S. Atteggiamenti dei docenti nei confronti dell'inclusione Scolastica. Traduzione e validazione italiana di IEFA. L’integrazione scolastica e sociale 20 , 124-156 (2021). Little, R. J. A. A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83 , 1198-1202 (1988). Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach . Guilford Press, New York (2017). Rajendran, P., Athira, B. K. & Elavarasi, D. Teacher competencies for inclusive education: will emotional intelligence do justice?. Shanlax Int. J. Educ. 9 , 169-182 (2020) Longobardi, C., Mastrokoukou, S. & Fabris, M. A. Teacher sentiments about physical appearance and risk of bullying victimization: the mediating role of quality of student–teacher relationships and psychological adjustment. Front. Educ. 8 , 1211403 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1211403. Muhati-Nyakundi, L. I. Teachers’ agency and wellbeing in inclusive education: challenges and opportunities. J. Educ. Stud. 1 , 365-379 (2023). UNESCO. Global education monitoring report, 2020: Inclusion and education: all means all. https://doi.org/10.54676/JJNK6989 (2020). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 29 Sep, 2024 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 12 Jul, 2024 Reviews received at journal 10 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Jul, 2024 Reviews received at journal 04 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 24 Jun, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 23 May, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 20 May, 2024 Editor invited by journal 20 Apr, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 20 Apr, 2024 First submitted to journal 29 Feb, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3999977","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":275607937,"identity":"cc7c045c-1067-47e2-ac52-118b485e05d0","order_by":0,"name":"Federica Graziano","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Turin","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Federica","middleName":"","lastName":"Graziano","suffix":""},{"id":275607938,"identity":"b8361511-ca31-471e-b961-7f10e3c9e8af","order_by":1,"name":"Sofia Mastrokoukou","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Turin","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sofia","middleName":"","lastName":"Mastrokoukou","suffix":""},{"id":275607939,"identity":"1d3c4ce3-1f3a-46e0-8f89-6dae787cab10","order_by":2,"name":"Alessandro Monchietto","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Turin","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alessandro","middleName":"","lastName":"Monchietto","suffix":""},{"id":275607940,"identity":"b4b8f669-4295-4687-ab8b-def33d2a4399","order_by":3,"name":"Cecilia Marchisio","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Turin","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cecilia","middleName":"","lastName":"Marchisio","suffix":""},{"id":275607941,"identity":"7e7e74a2-a0dc-4435-8cdf-7df323f51392","order_by":4,"name":"Emanuela Calandri","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Turin","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emanuela","middleName":"","lastName":"Calandri","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-02-29 13:59:35","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3999977/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3999977/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-70836-2","type":"published","date":"2024-09-29T15:57:57+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":52108270,"identity":"b03f7473-46f0-40a6-bd73-4f596e6eee72","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-06 20:10:22","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":9954,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe hypothesized three-way interaction model.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3999977/v1/82ed32b92872eddb23bf6560.png"},{"id":52108271,"identity":"600c1043-d940-4b14-b88a-ddb2cadcb791","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-06 20:10:22","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":83295,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eModerating effects of emotional self-efficacy and gender on the relationship between teacher empathy and self-efficacy for inclusive education.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3999977/v1/57798d0f67584f7158505d7f.png"},{"id":65627329,"identity":"ec6fb1ac-a84e-437a-8ba6-5279a95ae388","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-30 16:14:55","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":650765,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3999977/v1/eb4f100b-c0da-4884-8895-7237b917fbd7.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Teacher Empathy and Inclusive Education: the Moderating Role of Emotional Self-efficacy and Gender.","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEmpathy is defined as “the understanding of a person from their frame of reference rather than one’s own, or the vicarious experiencing of that person’s feelings, perceptions, and thoughts” (APA Dictionary, 2018). Empathy is a multidimensional construct that includes affective and cognitive components. The cognitive component refers to the ability to understand another person’s perspective in a given situation, while the affective component involves feeling warmth and concern for others and sharing another person’s emotions [1].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmpathy is recognized as a core competency for people working in relational and caring professions, such as physicians, nurses, teachers and educators [2]. In particular, empathy in teachers is increasingly recognized as a critical element in improving teacher-student interactions as well as in elevating student outcomes across academic, motivational, and psychosocial dimensions [3]. This multifaceted construct, encompassing cognitive and affective domains, is central to understanding and responding to students' nuanced experiences, thereby creating a supportive and effective learning atmosphere [4,5].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe importance of empathy extends beyond individual interactions and impacts the broader educational landscape by promoting social justice and understanding of students’ diverse backgrounds [6]. Empathic teachers are not just facilitators of content, but rather advocates and facilitators of student engagement and development [7].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmpathy is therefore an essential part of the teaching-learning process, especially in situations where learners are experiencing difficulties and for which inclusive education is required. Inclusive education, as defined in General Comment No. 4 Article 24 [8], is a system in which students of all abilities, including those with disabilities, learn together in the same environment, adapting the system to individual needs, rather than isolating or integrating students without adequate support. It emphasizes quality education for all and requires system-wide changes to ensure full participation and optimal outcomes for every student. The few studies on teacher empathy and inclusive education emphasize that higher teacher empathy is associated with more positive attitudes towards students with disabilities [9,10,11], and attitudes are known to be an important predictor of behavioral intentions [12].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeacher empathy, then, appears to be one of the factors that promote inclusion, but it is also a skill that is constantly challenged. Teachers working with students with special educational needs (SEN) (understood as learning disabilities, physical impairments and mental disorders) are exposed to an extremely stressful environment as they are confronted with a high level of responsibility towards students, the uncertainty of being able to meet their needs, personal frustration and the need for continuous professional development [13,14]. Maintaining relationships with families, educators and healthcare professionals can be another source of stress [15]. Being empathic in these circumstances can be associated with suffering and personal stress, especially if the person is overwhelmed by the other person's negative emotions [1]. Excessive emotional identification with other people’s suffering can lead to a state of exhaustion known as empathy fatigue [16] or compassion fatigue [17], which in turn is related to stress and burnout in caring professions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe few studies involving teachers showed that high levels of empathy were associated with stress in both mainstream and special school teachers [18] and that the affective aspect of empathy in particular was a predictor of teacher stress [19]. Teachers dealing with students with special educational needs are at risk of developing empathy fatigue [16], especially when dealing with students with mental health problems [20].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese studies suggest that high levels of empathy are not necessarily associated with greater ability to implement inclusive education, as it can lead to excessive emotional engagement and stress, which negatively impacts teachers' abilities. Therefore, the present study investigated whether the relationship between high empathy and perceived ability to implement inclusive education could be moderated by other variables such as emotional self-efficacy and gender.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmotional self-efficacy is the perceived ability to regulate and express one's emotions [21]. In particular, self-efficacy in dealing with negative emotions refers to the belief that one is able to improve negative emotional states and avoid being overwhelmed by emotions such as anger, irritability, dejection and discouragement [22]. Emotional self-efficacy has been shown to counteract the negative effects of high levels of empathy [23], although its role in teachers has not yet been investigated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, due to previous evidence suggesting gender differences in the variables of interest, with women generally reporting higher empathy [24] and lower emotional self-efficacy [23], gender was considered in the present study as a second moderator of the relationship between teacher empathy and perceived ability to implement inclusive education, in addition to emotional self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn sum, the present study had the following aims:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. to investigate the relationships between teacher empathy and self-efficacy in implementing inclusive education and the potential moderating role of emotional self-efficacy. Higher levels of empathy were expected to be related to higher levels of self-efficacy for inclusive education, especially when levels of emotional self-efficacy are higher.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. to investigate whether gender further moderates the relationships between empathy, emotional self-efficacy and self-efficacy in implementing inclusive education. This analysis was exploratory in nature and no specific hypotheses were formulated (Figure 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInsert Figure 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProcedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeachers were recruited on a voluntary basis from among those enrolled in a graduate university course on topics related to the activities of the support teacher and inclusive education.\u0026nbsp;In Italy, students with SEN are integrated into regular classes at all levels of education, avoiding segregation in special schools or separate classes. Support teachers are specialized educators who not only support individual students with SEN, but also improve the learning environment for the whole class, addressing both individual needs and collective challenges.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInclusion criteria of this study were being a support teacher with at least one year of work experience and currently teaching in a primary or secondary school (both middle and high). Data collection was conducted at the beginning of the academic year (October 2023) before the start of classes. After providing informed consent, all participants completed an anonymous online questionnaire through the LimeSurvey platform.\u0026nbsp;Only those who signed the informed consent were allowed to complete the questionnaire. The questionnaire was anonymous, and respondents' IP was not stored.\u0026nbsp;Participants did not receive benefits for participating in the study.\u0026nbsp;This study followed ethical guidelines of the Italian Association for Psychology (AIP) set forth regarding informed consent, data confidentiality, and voluntary participation. It was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the University of [blinded] (Prot. N. 0513134).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA convenience sample of\u0026nbsp;756 support\u0026nbsp;teachers from Northern Italy participated in the study,\u0026nbsp;with 739 responses considered valid. Most participants were female (86.9%, N=642; 13.1% male, N=97), reflecting the current Italian gender distribution of teachers (Colombo \u0026amp; Barabanti, 2020 [25]; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2023 [26]). They were\u0026nbsp;aged between 22 and 62 (M\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e=37.7, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=8.4). 246 (33.3%) were working in primary schools and 493 (67.12%) in secondary schools (middle schools=199, 26.9%; high schools=294, 39.8%). The average years of teaching experience was 3.7 years (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=2.5, range 1-24 years). In terms of educational qualification, most participants hold a bachelor's degree (N=625, 84.8%), the remaining a diploma (N=78, 10.6%), or a postgraduate degree (N=34, 4.6%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe survey used in this study had four sections: (1) demographic information, (2) Empathy Questionnaire, (3)\u0026nbsp;Emotional self-efficacy\u0026nbsp;Questionnaire, and (4) Self-efficacy to implement inclusive education Questionnaire.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemographic information\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe asked participants to report their demographic characteristics, such as gender, age, educational qualification, and professional variables, such as the type of school they currently teach and years of service as support teachers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEmpathy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeachers were administered a brief form of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index [27] derived from a widely used standardized self-report measure of disposition to empathic responsiveness [1]. For the present study, three subdimensions were considered, namely Empathic Concern (EC) (e.g., item “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me”), Personal Distress (PD) (e.g., “In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill-at-ease”), and Perspective Taking (PT) (e.g., Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place). Each subscale is composed of 4 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (it does not describe me at all) to 5 (it describes me very well) (total 12 items, range 12-60, Cronbach's alpha in the present study =\u0026nbsp;0.77).\u0026nbsp;For the final analysis, we used the total score of Empathy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEmotional self-efficacy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeachers completed the Multidimensional Negative Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale [22]. The scale is composed of 15 items that evaluate the perceived ability to regulate negative affect (anger, sadness, fear, shame, guilt) (e.g., item, “How able do you feel not let yourself become overcome with fear when you are threatened?”), rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not able at all) to 5 (very able) (range 15-75, Cronbach's alpha in the present study = 0.79).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeacher self-efficacy to implement inclusive education\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeachers completed the attitudes toward Inclusive Education For All questionnaire (IEFA) [29], which evaluates both attitudes toward inclusion and self-efficacy in implementing inclusive education. For the present study, only the subdimension of\u0026nbsp;self-efficacy for inclusive education\u0026nbsp;was considered: the scale is composed of 9 items, evaluating the perceived ability to implement inclusive strategies (e.g., “How able do you feel to accommodate learning tasks to respond to the individual needs of all students?”) and managing students’ behaviors in the classroom (e.g., “How able do you feel to control disruptive behavior in the classroom?”). Consistent with the definition of an inclusive school, the items in the IEFA do not refer to students with SEN or other categories but to students in the whole class. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not able at all) to 5 (very able) (range 9-45, Cronbach's alpha in the present study =\u0026nbsp;0.78).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe percentage of missing data for the study variables was less than 10% and the Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test [30] showed non significant results for all the\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003estudy variables; thus, missing were imputed in SPSS using the Expectation-Maximization (EM) procedure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations among the study variables, have been calculated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe hypothesized three-way interaction model was tested through the PROCESS SPSS macro (Model 3) [31]. Empathy was entered in the regression model as the independent variable, self-efficacy to implement inclusive education as the dependent variable, whereas emotional self-efficacy and gender as first and second moderators, respectively. Years of teaching were entered as covariates. We tested all 2-way interactions and the 3-way interaction. Continuous variables were mean-centered. The statistical significance of the moderation effect was evaluated through a bootstrapping procedure (95% confidence intervals with 5000 bootstrap samples). Confidence intervals that do not contain zero indicate a statistically significant effect. To interpret significant interactions, a simple slope analysis was performed, testing the relationship between the independent (empathy) and the dependent variable (self-efficacy to implement inclusive education) at low (mean -1 sd) and high (mean +1 sd) levels of the moderator (emotional self-efficacy) in the two groups (males vs females). All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS Statistics 29.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDescriptives\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeans, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables are reported in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBivariate correlations between study variables (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;739).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM (SD) or %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Gender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;86.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Age\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37.7 (8.4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Teaching experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.7 (2.5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.35**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Empathy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.8 (6.4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.12**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.09*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Emotional self-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.8 (5.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.23**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.14**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Self-efficacy for inclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31.9 (4.3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.10**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.16**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.39**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. Gender (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;male, 0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;female); *\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInsert Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA positive correlation was found between teachers\u0026rsquo; empathy and self-efficacy in relation to inclusive education (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.1, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01), suggesting that teachers who have higher levels of empathy tend to have greater confidence in their abilities to implement inclusive education practices. Similarly, emotional self-efficacy showed a positive correlation with self-efficacy for inclusive education (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.24, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01). This finding suggests that teachers who believe in their ability to manage emotions effectively are more likely to feel able to create and maintain inclusive classrooms. Gender differences were also examined, and female teachers were found to have a slightly higher correlation between empathy and self-efficacy in inclusive classrooms compared to male teachers (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.10, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt;. .05). In addition, the correlation between emotional self-efficacy and self-efficacy in inclusive education appeared to be stronger for female teachers (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.22, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInsert Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMean differences by gender and years of teaching experience in study variables (t-test).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM(\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM(\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(df)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy for inclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32.12 (4.61)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31.86 (4.24)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.57 (739)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpathy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.48 (6.11)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.87 (6.42)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.56 (739)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmotional Self-efficacy**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31.83 (5.02)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.33 (4.93)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.51 (739)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy for inclusion*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith more teaching experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32.39 (4.27)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith less teaching experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31.55 (4.25)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.69 (739)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpathy*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith more teaching experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.13 (6.32)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith less teaching experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36.43 (6.32)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.80 (739)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmotional Self-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith more teaching experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.03 (5.29)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith less teaching experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.64 (4.94)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.05 (739)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eNote: *\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05; ** \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e details the outcomes of independent samples t-tests assessing mean differences in psychological constructs relative to support teachers\u0026rsquo; gender and years of teaching experience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor self-efficacy in inclusive education, the analysis revealed no significant difference between male (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;32.12, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.61) and female (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31.86, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.24) support teachers; the result of the t-test was \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(739)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.57, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, with an effect size \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06. Empathy also showed no significant differences between male (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;35.48, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.11) and female (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;35.87, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.42) teachers, as shown by \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(739) = -0.56, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, and \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = -0.06.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA significant gender difference was observed in emotional self-efficacy, with male support teachers reporting significantly higher values (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31.83, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.02) than female teachers (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28.33, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.93), resulting in \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(739)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.51, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01 and a medium to large effect size \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.71.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding teaching experience, a small but statistically significant difference was found in self-efficacy for inclusive education, with more experienced support teachers scoring higher (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;32.39, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.27) compared to their less experienced colleagues (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31.55, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.25), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(739)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.69, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.20. Empathy was higher among the less experienced support teachers (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;36.43, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.32) than among those with more experience (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;35.13, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.32), t(739) = -2.80, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = -0.21. There was no significant effect of teaching experience on emotional self-efficacy, as shown by \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(739)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05 and \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08, with similar values for more experienced (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29.03, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.29) and less experienced (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28.64, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.94) support teachers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eModeration Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo predict self-efficacy for inclusive education, empathy was entered into the regression model as the independent variable, while emotional self-efficacy and gender were incorporated as the first and second moderators, respectively. Additionally, years of teaching experience was included as a covariate to adjust for its potential influence on the outcome variable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis examines interaction effects, including 2-way interactions (empathy \u0026times; emotional self-efficacy, empathy \u0026times; gender, and emotional self-efficacy \u0026times; gender) and a 3-way interaction (empathy \u0026times; emotional self-efficacy \u0026times; gender), to discern the moderation effects on self-efficacy for inclusive education. Results are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePredictors of teacher efficacy for inclusive education (regression analysis)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBootstrapping CI 95%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLL (lower limit)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUL (upper limit)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntercept\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e120.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpathy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmotional Self-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0306\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeaching experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0012\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpathy x Emotional Self-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0065\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpathy x Gender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmotional Self-efficacy x Gender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpathy x Emotional Self-efficacy x Gender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0288\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInsert Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificant coefficients for empathy and emotional self-efficacy highlight their contribution to self-efficacy for inclusive education. Specifically, empathy is associated with self-efficacy for inclusive education, with a coefficient of 0.1375 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001, 95% CI [0.0904, 0.1845]). Emotional self-efficacy also shows a significant positive effect (b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.3255, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001, 95% CI [0.2638, 0.3872]).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interaction between empathy and emotional self-efficacy reveals a significant moderation effect (b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0119, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.0065, 95% CI [0.0033, 0.0205]). Moreover, the 3-way interaction among empathy, emotional self-efficacy, and gender is significant (b = -0.0283, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.0288, 95% CI [-0.0537, -0.0029]), indicating the relationship between empathy and self-efficacy for inclusive education is influenced by both emotional self-efficacy and gender.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender is found to affect self-efficacy for inclusive education significantly (b = -1.0424, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.0306, 95% CI [-1.9870, -0.0978]), with males reporting lower levels of self-efficacy for inclusive education than females.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe 3-way interaction term slightly increases the explained variance of the model with a R-square change of 0.0052, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,730)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.79, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.028. The R-square of the final model is 0.2157, indicating that approximately 21.57% of the variance in self-efficacy for inclusive education is accounted for by the model, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(8, 730)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;25.0990, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe test of simple slopes indicates that the interaction between empathy and emotional self-efficacy is significant, specifically when considering the gender variable, with a notable impact observed for females. Specifically, for females with higher levels of emotional self-efficacy, increased empathy is significantly associated with higher self-efficacy for inclusive education (b = -0.0283, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0288, 95% CI = [-0.0537, -0.0029]) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInsert Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study investigated the relationship between teacher empathy and self-efficacy in inclusive education in a large sample of Italian support teachers. In addition, the moderating role of emotional self-efficacy and gender was explored. We found that higher levels of empathy were related to higher self-efficacy for inclusive education, especially when the perceived ability to regulate negative emotions was higher. This relationship was only found for female teachers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContrary to findings in the existing literature, empathy levels in our study did not differ by gender; however, consistent with previous research, emotional self-efficacy was found to be higher in males. Longer teaching experience was associated with lower empathy scores, suggesting a possible increase in the capacity for emotional detachment or alternatively defensive disengagement. This observation raises the question of whether prolonged contact with the profession and possibly also with the associated relationship stresses could lead to a strategic reduction in empathic engagement as a form of self-protection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe literature has found [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] that prolonged exposure to stressful relational experiences, such as those experienced by support teachers, reduces professional empathic engagement. This reduction could be interpreted as a defense mechanism, but could also indicate an improved ability of experienced teachers to moderate their emotional engagement. This moderation allows for the maintenance of a basic level of emotional empathy while protecting against exaggeration. This alternative interpretation is consistent with the finding of increased emotional self-efficacy in experienced teachers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt can be postulated that the ability to regulate negative emotions can effectively reduce the overall perception of empathy. This diminished perception does not necessarily imply a lack of empathic ability, but rather may reflect a sophisticated balancing act in which emotional self-regulation ensures that empathy remains a sustainable professional practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults of the moderation model expand on previous findings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e] showing that empathy can foster the implementation of an inclusive approach to education especially when teachers feel able to regulate negative emotions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs expected, empathy has become a core element that contributes to self-efficacy in the field of inclusive education. The significant positive correlation underscores the prominent role of empathic dispositions in fostering a school environment conducive to inclusion. This conclusion is consistent with previous research showing that empathy for students' diverse needs and perspectives is essential for a successful inclusive learning environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmotional self-efficacy was also found to be a significant predictor of self-efficacy in inclusive education. This finding is consistent with the theoretical framework which states that in inclusive contexts, teachers' beliefs regarding their ability to cope with emotional difficulties and maintain psychological resilience are essential [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. The analysis also revealed a significant interaction between empathy and emotional self-efficacy, indicating a moderation effect. This interaction suggests that the effect of empathy on self-efficacy in inclusive education is dependent on the level of emotional self-efficacy. This means that the positive effect of empathy on teachers' self-efficacy in inclusive education can be enhanced by emotional self-efficacy, highlighting the potential synergistic effects of empathy and emotional self-efficacy in improving inclusivity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the three-way interaction between empathy, emotional self-efficacy, and gender introduced a complex layer to the model, suggesting that the combined influence of empathy and emotional self-efficacy on self-efficacy towards inclusive education differs across genders. In particular, female teachers feel more able to apply inclusive education when they not only have high levels of empathy but also report higher levels of emotional self-efficacy. This pattern suggests that the key factor that can help or hinder the translation of empathy into meaningful inclusion practices, particularly for female teachers, is the ability to manage negative emotions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study is subject to some limitations that warrant careful consideration while providing valuable insights into the factors that influence self-efficacy for inclusive education in the teaching profession. First, the generalizability of the results to the broader target population is limited by the reliance on the volunteer participant pool. This limitation is an indication that the conclusions of this study should be taken with caution when extending to other sample sizes. Second, the limitations of causal inference from observed relationships are due to the cross-sectional design of the study. The snapshot presented in this design provides useful correlational results, but does not provide insight into the trajectory of these variables. Longitudinal studies are therefore urgently needed to more clearly determine causal relationships and to confirm the results of the current study in a temporally extended setting. Third, we did not examine the actual inclusive behaviors implemented by teachers in the classroom, so future studies should include measures of these behaviors. In addition, the study's focus on a single cultural context may preclude its applicability to different educational systems, particularly due to differences in national legislation and policies regarding opportunities for inclusion. In applying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e], Italy is one of the few countries worldwide attempting to fully realize the concept of inclusive education [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e], and this relates specifically to the context of the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn order to explore the generality of the proposed relationships and account for contextual differences in inclusive educational practice, future research efforts should aim to replicate this study and extend it to a diverse socio-cultural setting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these limitations, the study has implications for pre-service teacher education and in-service teacher training.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study supports the integration of empathy and emotional self-efficacy into pre-service and in-service teacher training programs to provide them with the emotional and empathic skills needed to promote an inclusive learning environment. By managing their negative emotions in classroom, teachers can be empowered to engage more deeply with their students and thus promote inclusion. The observed moderating effect of gender leads us to reconsider the dynamics of teacher education programs and calls for a tailored approach which takes into account gender specificities and views on inclusion in the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA final consideration concerns training aimed at improving empathy for inclusive teaching. These programs could put teachers, especially female teachers, at greater risk of emotional overload if they are not coupled with activities to promote emotional self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFG contributed to the definition of study design, performed the statistical analysis, interpreted data and wrote the manuscript, SM performed the statistical analysis, interpreted data and wrote the manuscript, AM supervised data collection and contributed to manuscript writing, CM supervised the study, EC contributed to the definition of study design and data interpretation and supervised the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDavis, M. H. The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: a multidimensional approach. \u003cem\u003eJ. Pers.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e51\u003c/strong\u003e, 167\u0026ndash;184 (1983).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNembhard, I. M., David, G., Ezzeddine. I., Betts. D. \u0026amp; Radin, J. A. A systematic review of research on empathy in health care. \u003cem\u003eHealth Serv. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e58\u003c/strong\u003e, 250-263 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAldrup, K., Carstensen, B. \u0026amp; Klusmann, U. Is empathy the key to effective teaching? A systematic review of its association with teacher-student interactions and student outcomes. \u003cem\u003eEduc. Psychol. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e34\u003c/strong\u003e, 1177\u0026ndash;1216 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTettegah, S. \u0026amp; Anderson, C. J. Pre-service teachers\u0026rsquo; empathy and cognitions: statistical analysis of text data by graphical models. \u003cem\u003eContemp. Educ. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e32\u003c/strong\u003e, 48\u0026ndash;82 (2007).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGoroshit M. \u0026amp; Hen, M. Teachers\u0026rsquo; empathy: can it be predicted by self-efficacy? \u003cem\u003eTeachers Teach.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e22\u003c/strong\u003e, 805\u0026ndash;818 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBullough, R. V. Empathy, teaching dispositions, social justice and teacher education. \u003cem\u003eTeachers Teach.: Theory Pract.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e25\u003c/strong\u003e, 507\u0026ndash;522 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSwan, P. \u0026amp; Riley, P. Social connection: empathy and mentalization for teachers. \u003cem\u003ePastoral Care Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e33\u003c/strong\u003e, 220\u0026ndash;233 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCRPD Committee. General Comment No. 4 Article 24: Right to Inclusive Education. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/GC.aspx (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarr, J. J. The relationship between teachers\u0026rsquo; empathy and perceptions of school culture. \u003cem\u003eEduc. Stud.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e37\u003c/strong\u003e, 365-369 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNavarro-Mateu, D., Franco-Ochoa, J., Valero-Moreno, S. \u0026amp; Prado-Gasc\u0026oacute;, V. To be or not to be an inclusive teacher: are empathy and social dominance relevant factors to positive attitudes towards inclusive education? \u003cem\u003ePloS one\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e, e0225993. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225993 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eParchomiuk, M. Teacher empathy and attitudes towards individuals with disabilities. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Disabil., Dev. Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e66\u003c/strong\u003e, 56-69 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAjzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. \u003cem\u003eOrgan. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e50\u003c/strong\u003e, 179-211 (1991).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKokkinos \u0026amp; C. M., Davazoglou, A. M. Special education teachers under stress: evidence from a Greek national study. \u003cem\u003eEduc. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e29\u003c/strong\u003e, 407\u0026ndash;424 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCrispel, O. \u0026amp; Kasperski, R. The impact of teacher training in special education on the implementation of inclusion in mainstream classrooms. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Incl. Educ.\u003c/em\u003e https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1600590 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBevel, M. \u0026amp; Altrogge, G. Preparing future administrators and teachers: developing empathy for individuals with disabilities. \u003cem\u003eJ. Philos. \u0026amp; Hist. Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e60\u003c/strong\u003e, 52\u0026ndash;56 (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKlimecki, O. \u0026amp; Singer, T. Empathic distress fatigue rather than compassion fatigue? Integrating findings from empathy research in psychology and social neuroscience. In \u003cem\u003ePathological Altruism\u003c/em\u003e (eds. Oakley, B., Knafo, A., Madhavan, G. \u0026amp; Wilson, D. S.) 368\u0026ndash;383 (Oxford University Press, 2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSinclair, S., Raffin-Bouchal, S., Venturato, L., Mijovic-Kondejewski, J. \u0026amp; Smith-MacDonald, L. Compassion fatigue: a meta-narrative review of the healthcare literature. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Nurs. Stud.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e69\u003c/strong\u003e, 9-24 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVučinić, V., Stanimirovic, D., Gligorović, M., Jablan, B. \u0026amp; Marinović, M. Stress and empathy in teachers at general and special education schools. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Disabil., Dev. \u0026amp; Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e69\u003c/strong\u003e, 533\u0026ndash;549 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePlatsidou, M. \u0026amp; Agaliotis, I. Does empathy predict instructional assignment-related stress? A study in special and general education teachers. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Disabil., Dev. \u0026amp; Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e64\u003c/strong\u003e, 57-75 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOrmiston, H. E., Nygaard, M. A. \u0026amp; Apgar, S. A systematic review of secondary traumatic stress and compassion fatigue in teachers. \u003cem\u003eSchool Ment. Health\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e, 802\u0026ndash;817 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBandura, A. Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M. \u0026amp; Pastorelli, C. Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. \u003cem\u003eChild Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e74\u003c/strong\u003e, 769\u0026ndash;782 (2003).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCaprara, G.V., Di Giunta, L., Pastorelli, C. \u0026amp; Eisenberg, N. Mastery of negative affect: a hierarchical model of emotional self-efficacy beliefs. \u003cem\u003ePsychol. Assess.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e25\u003c/strong\u003e, 105-116 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTully, E. C. Ames, A. M., Garcia, S. E. \u0026amp; Donohue, M. R. Quadratic associations between empathy and depression as moderated by emotion dysregulation. \u003cem\u003eJ. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e150\u003c/strong\u003e, 15\u0026ndash;35 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRochat, M. J. Sex and gender differences in the development of empathy. \u003cem\u003eJ. Neurosci. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e101\u003c/strong\u003e, 718-729 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eColombo, M. \u0026amp; Barabanti, P. Female hegemony among Italian educational professionals. In \u003cem\u003eThe Education of Gender. The Gender of Education. Sociological Research in Italy\u003c/em\u003e (eds. Colombo, M., \u0026amp; Salmieri, L.) 43-60 (Associazione Per Scuola Democratica, 2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. \u003cem\u003eEducation at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators\u003c/em\u003e. (OECD Publishing, 2023). https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIngoglia, S., Lo Coco, A. \u0026amp; Albiero, P. Development of a brief form of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (B\u0026ndash;IRI). \u003cem\u003eJ. Pers. Assess.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e98\u003c/strong\u003e, 461-471 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKielblock, S. \u003cem\u003eInclusive Education for All: Development of an instrument to measure the teachers\u0026rsquo; attitudes\u003c/em\u003e. Justus Liebig University, Giessen (2018). http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2018/13634/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVergani, F. \u0026amp; Kielblock, S. Atteggiamenti dei docenti nei confronti dell\u0026apos;inclusione Scolastica. Traduzione e validazione italiana di IEFA. \u003cem\u003eL\u0026rsquo;integrazione scolastica e sociale\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e20\u003c/strong\u003e, 124-156 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLittle, R. J. A. A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. \u003cem\u003eJ. Am. Stat. Assoc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e83\u003c/strong\u003e, 1198-1202 (1988).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHayes, A.F. \u003cem\u003eIntroduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach\u003c/em\u003e. Guilford Press, New York (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRajendran, P., Athira, B. K. \u0026amp; Elavarasi, D. Teacher competencies for inclusive education: will emotional intelligence do justice?. \u003cem\u003eShanlax Int. J. Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e, 169-182 (2020)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLongobardi, C., Mastrokoukou, S. \u0026amp; Fabris, M. A. Teacher sentiments about physical appearance and risk of bullying victimization: the mediating role of quality of student\u0026ndash;teacher relationships and psychological adjustment. \u003cem\u003eFront. Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 1211403 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1211403.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMuhati-Nyakundi, L. I. Teachers\u0026rsquo; agency and wellbeing in inclusive education: challenges and opportunities. \u003cem\u003eJ. Educ. Stud.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e, 365-379 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUNESCO. Global education monitoring report, 2020: Inclusion and education: all means all. https://doi.org/10.54676/JJNK6989 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"support teacher, inclusive education, emotional self-efficacy, empathy, gender differences","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3999977/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3999977/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe role of teacher empathy is recognized as a key factor in improving teacher-student interaction, motivation and academic performance. Despite the importance of teacher empathy, its role in promoting inclusive education is still largely unknown. High levels of empathy are not necessarily associated with greater ability to implement inclusive education, as they can lead to excessive emotional engagement and stress, which negatively affect teachers' abilities. Therefore, the present study explored whether the relationship between high empathy and perceived ability to implement inclusive education could be moderated by other variables, such as emotional self-efficacy and gender. A large sample of Italian support teachers (N=739; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e=37.7; females= 86.9%) was recruited for this study. We found that higher levels of empathy were related to higher levels of self-efficacy in inclusive education, especially when levels of emotional self-efficacy were higher. This relationship was only found for female teachers. The results contribute to knowledge about the role of teachers' empathy for inclusion as well as the moderating role of the ability to regulate negative emotions. The study has implications for pre-service teacher education and in-service teacher training.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Teacher Empathy and Inclusive Education: the Moderating Role of Emotional Self-efficacy and Gender.","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-03-06 20:10:17","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3999977/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-07-12T05:50:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-10T12:38:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"294538832748260095472141073917729632604","date":"2024-07-08T11:58:48+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-04T20:03:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"315174169693828065038483439325936081563","date":"2024-06-24T10:33:11+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-05-23T04:59:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-05-20T11:12:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2024-04-20T16:27:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-04-20T15:11:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2024-02-29T13:06:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"68fe956b-6466-4b57-a225-4872a5800b01","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 6th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":29054727,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":29054728,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-09-30T16:05:53+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-3999977","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-70836-2","journal":{"identity":"scientific-reports","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Scientific Reports"},"publishedOn":"2024-09-29 15:57:57","publishedOnDateReadable":"September 29th, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-03-06 20:10:17","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41598-024-70836-2","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-70836-2","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3999977","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3999977","identity":"rs-3999977","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}