A full understanding of emotion necessitates the bridging of disciplinary perspectives and methodological approaches. This special section uses emotional development as a foil to illustrate how suc...

Emotion Review, Volume 14, Issue 3, Page 167-181, July 2022. A growing cadre of influential scholars has converged on a circumscribed definition of empathy as restricted only to feeling the same emotion that one perceives another is feeling. We argue that this restrictive isomorphic matching definition is deeply problematic because it deviates dramatically from traditional conceptualizations of empathy and unmoors the construct from generations of scientific research and clinical practice; insistence on an isomorphic form undercuts much of the functional value (...) of empathy from multiple perspectives of analysis; and combining the opposing concepts of isomorphic matching and self-other awareness implicitly requires motivational content, causing the RIM definition to implicitly require the kind of non-matching emotional content that it explicitly seeks to exclude. (shrink)

The three commentaries on “Why We Should Reject the Restrictive Isomorphic Matching Definition of Empathy” mostly concurred with our critique of that widely adopted definition of empathy. Yet, commenters also raised important questions relating to the clarity and operationalizability of our recommended alternative: returning to a classical conceptualization of empathy as a dynamic, functionally oriented, multi-faceted unfolding process. To help contextualize these issues, we provide an extended analogy between empathy research and creativity research, areas of study which are conceptually linked (...) and have faced similar conceptual and methodological obstacles. In doing so, we highlight the challenge of distilling empathy down to a firm operationalizable definition without losing sight of the general meaning and real-world value of the construct. (shrink)

I strongly agree with the criticisms of the restrictive isomorphic matching definition of empathy made by Murphy, Lilienfeld, and Algoe, and largely agree with their conceptualization of empathy as a dynamic process best defined by its function. In this commentary, I extend this argument by emphasizing the relational, interpersonal aspects of empathy. It is my view that in order to understand the functions of empathy, we must take into account not only the internal experience of the individual empathizing, but also (...) the individual whose perspective the empathizer is attempting to take. I highlight how the emotional needs of others are dynamic and require flexible adaptation and underscore the role of context in appreciating the function of empathy. (shrink)

This comment on Main and Kho’s suggestion for “a relational framework for integrating the study of empathy in children and adults” takes a conversation analytic perspective. First, I will su...

I strongly agree with Main and Kho’s primary contention that a relational approach can provide clarity regarding how empathy-related processes become increasingly coordinated over the lifespan. However, I go further to suggest that their “relational approach” should be expanded to include the larger social, cultural, economic, political, and moral contexts that shape and influence more intimate interpersonal relations, including empathic processes. Such an ethnographic, comparative approach has the advantage of helping us ascertain the extent to which empathic processes vary in (...) different times and places, but also aids us in identifying more accurately what is most “basic” or translocal about these processes. (shrink)