The conceptual diversity in the definition of empathy has resulted in descriptions of a highly heterogeneous collection of related phenomena, causing confusion as to what empathy actually is. Some of this heterogeneity arises due to disparate viewpoints across different disciplines. Capturing this transdisciplinary construct and arriving at a clear and unambiguous overarching definition of empathy will help provide a clearer outline of the fundamental dimensions of empathy, and will facilitate greater consistency in research and discussion of empathy across and between a range of disciplines. An inductive conceptual content analysis of the existing definitions of empathy was undertaken to distil the common higher order and lower order components of empathy definitions that have been used in the literature since 1980. A total of 146 definitions of empathy were sourced from a sample of 506 publications. Nine overarching dimensions were identified within the 146 definitions, including empathy as a catalyst, function, process, outcome, affective state, cognitive state, involving self and other, leading to a behaviour, and occurring in a specific context. The resultant meta-definition of empathy is “the ability to experience affective and cognitive states of another person, while maintaining a distinct self, in order to understand the other.” The results reveal empathy as a complex series of processes that we argue should be considered an “empathic system” given its multidimensional nature.
BatsonC. D. (2010). Empathy-induced altruistic motivation. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 15-34). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12061-001
BreithauptF. (2019). The dark sides of empathy. Cornell University Press.
5.
Christov-MooreL.SimpsonE. A.CoudéG.GrigaityteK.IacoboniM.FerrariP. F. (2014). Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 46(Prt. 4), 604-627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.001
6.
CoplanA. (2011). Will the real empathy please stand up? A case for a narrow conceptualization. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 49(Suppl. 1), 40-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.2011.00056.x
7.
CorcoranK. J. (1981). Experiential empathy: A theory of a felt-level experience. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 21(1), 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002216788102100104
8.
De WaalF.PrestonS. D. (2017). Mammalian empathy: Behavioural manifestations and neural basis. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 18(8), 498-509. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2017.72
9.
DecetyJ.CowellJ. M. (2014). “Friends or Foes: Is Empathy Necessary for Moral Behavior?”Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 525-537. https://doi:10.1177/1745691614545130
10.
DecetyJ.JacksonP. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582304267187
11.
DecetyJ.JacksonP. L. (2006). “A Social-Neuroscience Perspective on Empathy.”Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(2), 54-58.
12.
DecetyJ.LammC. (2006). Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience. Scientific World Journal, 6, 1146-1163. https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2006.221
13.
DecetyJ.LammC. (2009). Empathy versus personal distress: Recent evidence from social neuroscience. In DecetyJ.IckesW. (Eds.), Social neuroscience: The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 199-213). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262012973.003.0016
14.
DecetyJ.SmithK. E.NormanG. J.HalpernJ. (2014). A social neuroscience perspective on clinical empathy. World Psychiatry: Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 13(3), 233-237. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20146
15.
DecetyJ.SvetlovaM. (2012). Putting together phylogenetic and ontogenetic perspectives on empathy. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2011.05.003
16.
DrozekR. P. (2018). Psychoanalysis as an ethical process: Ethical intersubjectivity and therapeutic action. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 28(5), 538-556. https://doi.org/10.1080/10481885.2018.1506219
17.
EnglanderM.FolkessonA. (2014). Evaluating the phenomenological approach to empathy training. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 54(3), 294-313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167813493351
18.
GalleseV. (2009). Mirror neurons, embodied simulation, and the neural basis of social identification. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 19(5), 519-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/10481880903231910
GerdesK. E.LeitzC. A.SegalE. A. (2011). Measuring empathy in the 21st Century: Development of an empathy index rooted in social cognitive neuroscience and social justice. Children & Schools, 35(2), 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/35.2.83
21.
Gonzalez-LiencresC.Shamay-TsooryS. G.BrüneM. (2013). Towards a neuroscience of empathy: Ontogeny, phylogeny, brain mechanisms, context and psychopathology. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(8), 1537-1548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.05.001
22.
GrbichC. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. Sage.
23.
GuthridgeM.MasonP. H.PenovicT.GiummarraM. J. (2020). A critical review of interdisciplinary perspectives on the paradox of prosocial compared to antisocial manifestations of empathy. Social Science Information, 59(4), 632-653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018420976946
HeymN.FirthJ.KibowskiF.SumichA.EganV.BloxsomC. A. J. (2019). Empathy at the heart of darkness: Empathy deficits that bind the dark triad and those that mediate indirect relational aggression. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, Article 95. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00095
29.
JacksonP. L.MeltzoffA. N.DecetyJ. (2005). How do we perceive the pain of others? A window into the neural processes involved in empathy. NeuroImage, 24(3), 771-779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.09.006
30.
KrippendorffK. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.
31.
LammC.BatsonC. D.DecetyJ. (2007). The neural substrate of human empathy: Effects of perspective-taking and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(1), 42-58. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.1.42
32.
LuxV.WeigalS. (2017). Empathy: Epistemic problems and cultural-historical perspectives of a cross-disciplinary concept. Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51299-4
33.
MarchE. (2019). Psychopathy, sadism, empathy, and the motivation to cause harm: New evidence confirms malevolent nature of the Internet Troll. Personality and Individual Differences, 141(April), 133-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.001
MukamelR.EkstromA. D.KaplanJ.IacoboniM.FriedI. (2010). Single-neuron responses in humans during execution and observation of actions. Current Biology, 20(8), 750-756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.02.045
36.
PajevicM.Vukosavljevic-GvozdenT.StevanovicN.NeumannC. S. (2018). The relationship between the Dark Tetrad and a two-dimensional view of empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 123(March), 125-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.009
37.
PinedaJ. A.MooreA. R.ElfenbeinandH.CoxR. (2009). Hierarchically organized mirroring processes in social cognition: The functional neuroanatomy of empathy. In PinedaJ. A. (Ed.), Mirror neuron systems: The role of mirroring processes in social cognition (pp. 135-160). Humana Press.
38.
PrestonS. D.de WaalF. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X02000018
SchimmentiA.JonasonP. K.PassanisiA.La MarcaL.Di DioN.GervasiA. M. (2019). Exploring the dark side of personality: Emotional awareness, empathy, and the Dark Triad Traits in an Italian sample. Current Psychology, 38(1), 100-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9588-6
41.
SingerT. (2006). The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: Review of literature and implications for future research. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(6), 855-863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.06.011
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
