Comment: Empathy as a Flexible and Fundamentally Interpersonal Phenomenon: Comment on “Why We Should Reject the Restrictive Isomorphic Matching Definition of Empathy”

Abstract

I strongly agree with the criticisms of the restrictive isomorphic matching (RIM) definition of empathy made by Murphy, Lilienfeld, and Algoe (2022), 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 (or group) 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.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Carlo

Mestre

M. V.

Samper

Tur

Armenta

B. E.

(2010). The longitudinal relations among dimensions of parenting styles, sympathy, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(2), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025410375921

Eisenberg

(2018). Empathy-related responding and its relations to positive development. In Roughley

Schramme

(Eds.), Forms of fellow feeling: Empathy, sympathy, concern and moral agency (pp. 165–181). Cambridge University Press.

Halpern

(2007). Empathy and patient-physician conflicts. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(5), 696–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-006-0102-3

Hollan

(2008). Being there: On the imaginative aspects of understanding others and being understood. Ethos (Berkeley, Calif), 36(4), 475–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1352.2008.00028.x

Ickes, W. (1997). Empathic accuracy. Guilford.

Kupetz

(2014). Empathy displays as interactional achievements—multimodal and sequential aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, 4–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.006

Main

Kho

(2020). A relational framework for integrating the study of empathy in children and adults. Emotion Review, 12(4), 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073919868755

Main, A., Lougheed, J. P., Disla, J., & Kashi, S. (2019). Timing of adolescent emotional disclosures: The role of maternal emotions and adolescent age. Emotion, 19(5), 829–840. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000483.

Martin, C. G., Kim, H. K., & Freyd, J. J. (2018). In the spirit of full disclosure: Maternal distress, emotion validation, and adolescent disclosure of distressing experiences. Emotion, 18(3), 400–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000363.

10.

Main

Walle

E. A.

Kho

Halpern

(2017). The interpersonal functions of empathy: A relational perspective. Emotion Review, 9(4), 358–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916669440

11.

Murphy

B. A.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Algoe

S. B.

(2022). Why we should reject the restrictive isomorphic matching definition of empathy. Emotion Review, 14(3), 167–181. doi:10.1177/17540739221082215

12.

Suchman

Markakis

Beckman

Frankel

(1997). A model of empathic communication in the medical interview. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(8), 678–682. PMID: 9039890. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540320082047

13.

Zaki

Bolger

Ochsner

(2008). It takes two: The interpersonal nature of empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 19(4), 399–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02099.x