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)

Emotion Review, Ahead of Print. 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)