5. Develop and Use Empathy (Part 2)

This is Part 2 of an article with the title Develop and Use Empathy. Part 1 of this article (which you can find here ) included that empathy is considered to involve both cognitive and affective components. Cognitive empathy involves understanding the thoughts, beliefs, and intentions of others. Affective empathy involves experiencing emotions that are congruent with those of another person.

In 2021 Eklund and Meranius published a helpful ‘review of reviews’ which identified a developing consensus in most conceptualisations of empathy. They found four themes and say that based on these themes, empathy can be defined as “to understand, feel, and share what someone else feels, with self-other differentiation." Self-other differentiation is to be aware that it is the other person and not oneself experiencing something.

I thought after finishing Part 1 that my better understanding of empathy would enable me to go on and explore why empathy matters, how empathy can be used when working with conflict and whether empathy can in fact be acquired. But quickly realised there are other concepts which I first needed to understand better – these are rationality, intuition, Theory of Mind and kindness. And I also wanted to have a look at what is a new concept for me, that off ‘Impathy’. So I have read some more and have decided to share my learning in this article.

Rationality

Rationality and empathy do seem to be contrasting concepts, as rationality is often associated with logic and reason, while empathy is associated with emotions and understanding others' feelings. In a broad sense, I understand that rationality refers to the quality of being reasonable, logical, and consistent in thought and action. It involves the ability to engage in logical reasoning and critical thinking, draw valid conclusions from premises or evidence, recognise and evaluate arguments, identify flaws in reasoning, and make sound judgments based on evidence and analysis.

Martingano and Konrath (2022) is just one of the studies I read, but I’ll refer to it in a bit of details as it draws together much of my reading about rationality and empathy. Their research focuses on how empathy and rational thinking may be related and they make the important point that “depending on how empathy (and rationality) are defined, the assumed nature of their relationship would likely be different.”

Their study defines rationality as a thinking style characterised by “a tendency to make slower, elaborated, and cognition-based decisions” which involves a system “which operates at a conscious level and is intentional, [and] analytical”. With regard to empathy they use the overarching terms ‘emotional empathy’ and ‘cognitive empathy’”. They further subdivide emotional empathy into empathic concern, emotion contagion, and personal distress. Cognitive empathy is used as an overarching term to include Theory of Mind [see later in this article], emotion recognition, perspective taking and fantasy.

Martingano and Konrath (2022) write that “to our knowledge, there are only two established theories in psychology that formally hypothesize the expected relationship between rationality and empathy. ‘Dual-process’ models of empathy theorize that cognitive empathy is a more rational process [than emotional empathy] so you might expect that cognitive empathy and rational thinking would be positively associated. The opposing ‘domains hypothesis’ posits that even cognitive empathy is in conflict with rational thinking.”

Their study finds that personal distress and emotional contagion appear to be the least rational of the empathy subtypes investigated and that cognitive empathy is positively associated with, or at least unrelated to, rational thinking. They conclude that although these results do not settle the debate on empathy and rationality, they do provide tentative support for a dual-process model of empathy. They also comment that the relationship between empathy and rational thinking is complex, nuanced and likely context dependent.

My learning here is that rationality and empathy both involve understanding: rationality seeks to understand situations, problems and decisions through logical analysis and reasoning, while empathy seeks to understand the emotions, perspectives and experiences of others. So they can complement each other when working with conflict, as rationality can help to objectively analyse the root causes of conflicts and to find logical solutions, while empathy helps in understanding the emotions and perspectives of all parties involved.

Intuition

When finding out more about intuition I came across the following quote (with which I have some affinity): that “The problem in our modern society, is that we have become heavily reliant on logic and objective reasoning, and this has contributed to a hyper-connected, yet disconnected world. Wisdom has been replaced by knowledge, which in turn has been replaced by information.”

I also came across the work of Hrund Gunnsteinsdóttir and her views on inns?i (an Icelandic word for intuition) in a New Constellations blog post . She says that inns?i means the sea within (which is constantly moving), to see within (about knowing yourself - your inner landscape which changes over time) and to see from the inside out (which is about knowing “what your compass is because you know yourself and you’re connected within and you accompany yourself through life. And this enables you to navigate the way that is right for you at each and every moment in life”).

I am really simplifying from my reading here in saying that intuition involves the quick, automatic and subconscious processing of information based on previous experiences, patterns, knowledge and emotional cues. It is a cognitive process that involves arriving at conclusions, or making decisions without conscious logical reasoning - and is often described as a ‘gut feeling’ (or instinctive understanding) – which is a sense of knowing something without being able to explain exactly why.

Martingano and Konrath (2022) consider that intuition refers to trust or faith in one’s ‘gut feelings’, which is separate from a person’s willingness to engage in rational thinking. And say that “Importantly, rational thinking and intuitive thinking do not constitute polar opposites on a single dimension, but are two separate dimensions.” They also write that it is important to note that the opposite of rationality is irrationality, not intuition.

Writing in ‘The Conversation’ in 2024 (about how actors act intuitively), Valerie van Mulukom refers to her latest research and how intuition may be best understood as an “embodied state of mind” supported by the cognitive abilities of being aware of ourselves and our surroundings and being immersed in an experience. She references William James, “generally acknowledged to be the founder of modern psychology, [who] suggested that there are two sides to awareness, the “I” and the “me”. The active aspect of self-awareness is the “I” – this is the part of our awareness that experiences the here and now – sometimes referred to as the “experiential self”. The more passive aspect of awareness is the “me” – this part that observes or reflects upon our actions. We might call this the rational or reflective self.”

Mulukom writes that “We perceive the world with our entire bodies, through all of our senses - from seeing to “thermoception” (sensing temperature) and “proprioception” (knowing which parts of your body are where without looking).” And that intuition happens when we are attuned to both what happens in our body and what happens around us. I find this fascinating as I have long been interested in ‘interoception’, which has been defined as our ability to perceive and interpret signals coming from within our own bodies. So rather than being distracted by exploring this in detail here, I may well write a separate article. Mulukom goes on to write that “we also need the ability for immersion or absorption, which means that you can stay fully immersed in a task through focused attention, as well as meta-awareness: an awareness of having the experience, rather than reflecting on the fact that you are having an experience.”

Another article in The Conversation (by Darel Cookson on conspiracy theorists seeming to favour an intuitive thinking style) discusses how we often consider analytic and intuitive thinking styles as an either-or, and when making decisions or judgments we must choose one over the other. In this article she refers to a metanalysis of 50 years of cognitive style research which found evidence that these thinking styles could happen at the same time. So rather than two opposing ends of a spectrum they are separate constructs, meaning that these thinking styles can happen together. Cookson goes on to write that “Research in decision-making also suggests that thinking style is flexible and the best decisions are made when the thinking style a person uses aligns with the situation at hand.” And that “An adaptive decision-maker is skilled in using both thinking styles.”

The writers I read (such as Ayal et al. 2015) seem to agree that rational decision-making is well-suited for complicated and structured situations where careful analysis and logical reasoning are needed to arrive at the best solution. And that intuition is often relied upon in situations characterised by complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity or time pressure, where quick decisions are required and there may not be clear-cut answers. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, and the most effective decision-making often involves a balance between rationality and intuition, depending on the context and nature of the decision.

Okoli and Watt, (2018) write about intuition being pattern recognition based on experience and learning. They suggest that the ability of an expert to make intuitive decisions is strongly hinged on information processing skills that allow irrelevant cues to be sifted out while the relevant cues are retained. Their article further reveals that experts generally employ the intuitive mode as their default strategy, drawing on the analytical mode only as conditions warrant. They consider that “training novices or ‘pseudo-experts’ to become better intuitive decision makers will mostly entail strengthening their experience base through relevant learning tasks.”

But what about empathy and intuition? It seems that they are distinct concepts which share common elements. Both involve subjective experiences that are internal to an individual and both can operate quickly and spontaneously, often without conscious effort or deliberation. Both also have a role in interpersonal relationships as empathy enables individuals to connect with others and intuition can provide insights into the thoughts, feelings and motivations of others, even when these may not be explicitly communicated. So I understand that empathy is more directed outwards towards others, as it involves perceiving and responding , whereas intuition is more internally focused, as it involves an individual's own sense of knowing or understanding without necessarily externalising it.

Theory of Mind

I kept coming across reference to ‘Theory of Mind’ in my readings about empathy and noticed how the two terms often seemed to be used interchangeably. However, my further reading again finds that empathy and Theory of Mind are different but related concepts.

Again I am simplifying greatly. Theory of Mind (ToM) refers to the ability to attribute mental states - such as beliefs, desires, intentions and knowledge - to oneself and to others - and to understand that others may have different beliefs, desires and perspectives from your own. I have seen ToM referred to as ‘mentalising’. I understand (from Wikipedia ) that it is described as a theory because the behaviour of the other person, such as their statements and expressions, is the only thing being directly observed and the existence and nature of the mind must be inferred. Some articles suggest that ToM allows individuals to understand and predict others' behaviours based on their mental states, saying this is crucial for social interaction, communication and cooperation.

McDonald and Kanske (2023) define ToM as “the ability to understand and use abstract propositional knowledge about another’s mental states.” Baker-Eck (2022) writes that “ToM is the capability or ability to be able to think about what another individual may be experiencing or thinking about, but not necessarily the accuracy of this (empathic accuracy). In her research she considers ToM as “an empathic construct, specifically as a type or part of empathy.”

Schurz et al (2021) write that “empathy and ToM are both thought to comprise affective and cognitive subforms, complicating the distinction between the terms.” After carrying out a meta-analytic clustering of neuroimaging data across different social-cognitive tasks, they describe how the higher level of their model suggests three groups of neurocognitive processes: “(a) predominantly cognitive processes, which are engaged when mentalizing requires self-generated cognition decoupled from the physical world; (b) more affective processes, which are engaged when we witness emotions in others based on shared emotional, motor, and somatosensory representations; (c) combined processes, which engage cognitive and affective functions in parallel.”

Preckel et al (2018) consider that “Despite the separability of socio-affective and socio-cognitive functions, these social capacities are jointly activated and interact in complex social situations.” They write that ToM is a socio-cognitive process which “yields abstract, propositional knowledge about the other’s mental state.” Whereas empathy is a “socio-affective process which involves “resonating with someone else’s feelings, regardless of valence (positive/negative), but with the explicit knowledge that the other person is the origin of this emotion” (the self-other distinction).” Interestingly (I think) they observe that “strong empathizers are not necessarily proficient mentalizers.”

Preckel et al (2018) state that the distinction of self and other constitutes an important element of both empathy and ToM, as it enables the differentiation between one’s own emotional or mental states and the states shared with others. Also that failure of self-other distinction results in a blending of these states, thereby inducing an egocentricity bias, the tendency to project one’s own emotional or mental state on someone else, or an alter centric bias (the influence of others’ states on judgments about oneself). They also consider compassion, saying that its “critical property may be that it counteracts negative emotion elicited by experiencing others’ suffering through positive emotion generation, thereby acting as an emotion regulation strategy.” Their paper concludes that “despite being separable, empathy and ToM are jointly required in many complex social situations”.

My understanding is that empathy and ToM both involve cognitive processes. ToM is primarily a cognitive ability related to understanding others' mental states and perspectives, whereas empathy encompasses both cognitive and affective components involving both understanding and sharing others' emotions. It seems that ToM is closely linked to empathy because it enables individuals to understand and interpret others' emotions, intentions, and behaviours, which is crucial for empathetic responses.

Kindness

I have written before about kindness and compassion (see my 2019 article Six Themes Part 1 ) saying how I knew from my own practice and academic reading that kindness and compassion are central to the resolution of disputes. I quoted from a paper by Fehr and Gelfand (2012) ‘The forgiving organization: A multilevel model of forgiveness at work’ that “Few situations cry out for care and compassion as loudly as interpersonal conflict. Ironically, it is often these situations where care and compassion are most rare.”

Again I find from my current readings that empathy and kindness are related but distinct concepts. Kindness involves acting in a caring, considerate and compassionate manner towards others. It is the quality of being friendly, generous, and helpful, often demonstrated through gestures, words, or actions that benefit others without expecting anything in return. Kindness is about actively seeking to promote happiness and contribute positively to the well-being of others.

So, while empathy involves understanding and sharing others' feelings, kindness involves actively demonstrating care and consideration through compassionate actions. Empathy is more about emotional understanding, while kindness is about benevolent behaviour. However, it seems that they often go hand in hand, as empathy can motivate kind actions and kind actions can enhance empathetic connections. I must admit to struggling a bit to understand the difference between kindness and compassion, but it seems that kindness involves more outward gestures of goodwill, while compassion is a deeper emotional response rooted in empathy and a desire to alleviate suffering.

And I also referred in my 2019 article to a paper by Penelope Campling (related to the findings of the Francis reports into the care provided by Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust), which made the case for reforming the culture of healthcare through a conscious focus on the concept of ‘intelligent kindness’. I have since better understood intelligent kindness to represent the idea that kindness can be both compassionate and intelligent and that it emphasises the importance of combining empathy with critical thinking and strategic action to make a positive difference in the lives of others. So acts of kindness are not only well-intentioned but also well-informed.

I think it worth mentioning here that my Six Themes Part 1 article also referred to the 2018 Carnegie UK Trust Report ‘Kindness, emotions and human relationships: The blind spot in public policy ’ authored by Julia Unwin, which acknowledged the growing recognition of the importance of human connection and relationships for individual and societal wellbeing. As I wrote at the time, what drew me in particular to this report was her writing about their being two lexicons in public policy and the need to be bilingual - to speak both the 'rational' language of policy (fair, transparent, evidence-based, systematic) and the 'relational' language of emotion (responsive, human, personalised). She said that both lexicons have their risks and benefits if they are used exclusively and warned against total reliance on either language, advocating for integration between these two dialogues.

I commented when writing the article in 2019 that “This makes so much sense” – and it still does. If you would like to know more I would recommend this article ‘Can kindness shape a new citizen-state relationship? ’ by my esteemed colleague Margaret Doyle.

Impathy

Finally, as part of my reading I came across the concept of ‘impathy’. Stefanie and Gaab (2022) explain that "impathy (introversive empathy) can be understood as the ability to share in and understand one’s own feelings and that in simplified terms, impathy can be considered as an inwardly directed empathy.” They describe it as being “a process of active intrapsychic engagement that involves the ability to perceive and understand one’s own internal states and circumstances with an accepting attitude, while being sufficiently aware of the fact that the source of the perceived experience represents individual feelings, thoughts, and sensations rather than the person in their complex entirety.” And say it is considered a critical psychological construct relevant for the recovery and maintenance of mental health

They go on to consider impathy with related constructs such as self-compassion and self-awareness, saying that “It can be reasoned that there are functional differences as impathy includes both an affective component and a cognitive component. Although impathy may lead to emotional (e.g., self-compassion) and/or behavioral responses (e.g., introversive helping behavior), these implications are not part of impathy itself, but reflect possible outcomes of engaging in an intrasubjective process that begins with feeling oneself into one’s own experience.”

So impathy is the ability to understand and empathise with your own emotions, thoughts and experiences with acceptance and without judgement. It is about relating adaptively to your own experiences. I know that emotion regulation has been characterized as “the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions” (Gross 1998), with adaptive emotion regulation being the ability to deal effectively with one’s own emotions. And my understanding is that impathy can contribute to effective emotion regulation by fostering self-awareness, acceptance and the development of adaptive coping strategies.

Related to this, Salazar K?mpf et al (2023) refer to research on how our response to another person’s emotions may differ depending on our ability to regulate our own emotional states, suggesting that “we can turn to the needs of others only if we are able to regulate our own emotions successfully” and that the regulation strategy we use needs to fit the context.

Bringing it all together

! think it was worth spending a bit of time on this as I increasingly appreciate and value the importance of relationships when working with conflict – and I now better understand how empathy, rationality, compassion, kindness, intuition and Theory of Mind all have a part to play in understanding and interacting with others. Although they operate through different cognitive processes and emphasise different aspects of cognition and behaviour, they often intersect and complement each other.

For example, rationality can enhance empathy by providing a framework for understanding others' emotions. Intuition can play a role in empathy and Theory of Mind by facilitating quick assessments of social situations and others' emotional states. Kindness often stems from empathy, as understanding others' experiences can motivate acts of goodwill and benevolence. Compassion is closely linked to empathy and kindness because it arises from empathetic understanding and motivates acts of support for others.

This exploration has also – again – brought home to me the importance of knowing yourself and about developing self-awareness about your own approach and response to conflict (see Understand Your Own Response to Conflict Part 1 and Part 2 ). Krol and Bartz (2022) have researched the psychological factors that might facilitate self–other distinction in the context of empathy. Their findings “highlight the importance of a clear, coherent and stable self-concept for empathy, and suggest that interventions aimed at increasing empathy may be futile in the presence of a weak and unclear sense of self.”?

Onwards now to Part 3 of this article, why empathy matters, how empathy can be used when working with conflict and whether empathy can be acquired.

References

Ayal, S., Rusou, Z., Zakay, D. and Hochman, G., 2015. Determinants of judgment and decision making quality: the interplay between information processing style and situational factors. Frontiers in psychology, 6, p.139731.

Baker-Eck, B., 2022. The psychology of investigative interviewing with suspects of serious offences: an examination of empathy. University of Derby (United Kingdom).

Campling, P., 2015. Reforming the culture of healthcare: the case for intelligent kindness. BJPsych Bulletin, 39(1), pp.1-5.

Eklund, J.H. and Meranius, M.S., 2021. Toward a consensus on the nature of empathy: A review of reviews. Patient Education and Counseling, 104(2), pp.300-307.

Fehr, R. and Gelfand, M.J., 2012. The forgiving organization: A multilevel model of forgiveness at work. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), pp.664-688.

Gross, J. J. 1998. The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), pp. 271–299.

Krol, S. A., & Bartz, J. A.(2022. The self and empathy: Lacking a clear and stable sense of self undermines empathy and helping behavior. Emotion, 22(7), 1554–1571.

McDonald, B. and Kanske, P., 2023. Gender differences in empathy, compassion, and prosocial donations, but not theory of mind in a naturalistic social task. Scientific Reports, 13(1), p.20748.

Martingano, A.J. and Konrath, S., 2022. How cognitive and emotional empathy relate to rational thinking: empirical evidence and meta-analysis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 162(1), pp.143-160.

Okoli, J. and Watt, J., 2018. Crisis decision-making: the overlap between intuitive and analytical strategies. Management Decision, 56(5), pp.1122-1134.

Preckel, K., Kanske, P. and Singer, T., 2018. On the interaction of social affect and cognition: empathy, compassion and theory of mind. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 19, pp.1-6.

Salazar K?mpf, M., Adam, L., Rohr, M.K., Exner, C. and Wieck, C., 2023. A meta-analysis of the relationship between emotion regulation and social affect and cognition. Clinical Psychological Science, 11(6), pp.1159-1189.

Schurz, M., Radua, J., Tholen, M.G., Maliske, L., Margulies, D.S., Mars, R.B., Sallet, J. and Kanske, P., 2021. Toward a hierarchical model of social cognition: A neuroimaging meta-analysis and integrative review of empathy and theory of mind. Psychological Bulletin, 147(3), p.293.

Stefanie, N. and Gaab, J., 2022. The missing construct: Impathy. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, pp. 1- 13.