"Empathy: A neglected topic in psychological research": Reply

Abstract

Replies to K. B. Clark's (see record
1980-09677-001) article on empathy by distinguishing empathy as a state or condition from the behaviors which stem from that state. Given the prerequisites of understanding and being able to identify emotional behavior, a person with empathy then shifts his or her point of view to comprehend the feeling state of another person. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Full text

Berkowitz,
L,
Social
norms,
feelings,
and
other
factors
affecting
helping
and
al-
truism,
In L.
Berkowitz
(Ed.),
Advances
in
experimental
social
psychology
(Vol.
6).
New
York:
Academic
Press,
1972.
Clark,
K.
Empathy:
A
neglected
topic
in
psychological
research.
American Psy-
chologist,
1980,
35,
187-190.
Gladstein,
G. A.
Empathy
and
counseling
outcome:
An
empirical
and
conceptual
review.
Counseling
Psychologist,
1977,
6,
70-79.
Hackney,
H. The
evolution
of
empathy.
Personnel
and
Guidance Journal, 1978,
57,
14-18.
Hoffman,
M.
Empathy:
Its
development
and
prosocial
implications.
In H.
Howe
&
C.
Keasy
(Eds.),
Nebraska
Sympo-
sium
on
Motivation
(Vol.
26).
Lincoln:
University
of
Nebraska
Press,
1978.
Rogers,
C.
Ernpathic:
An
unappreciated
way
of
being.
Counseling Psychologist,
1975,
5,
2-10.
Smither,
S. A
reconsideration
of the de-
velopmental
study
of
empathy.
Human
Development, 1977,
20,
253-276.
Stotland,
E.,
Mathews,
K.,
Sherman,
S.,
Hansson,
R., &
Richardson,
B.
Empa-
thy, fantasy
and
helping. Beverly
Hills,
Calif.:
Sage,
1978.
Wispe,
L. G.
Sympathy
and
empathy.
In
D. L.
Sills
(Ed.),
International encyclo-
pedia
of the
social
sciences.
New
York:
Macmillan,
1968.
Empathy
as
Teachable
Jeffrey
H.
Golland
Baruch
College
City
University
of New
York
Clark's (February 1980) emphasis
on
the
neutral substrate
of
empathy
is
unfortunate
in
that
it
weakens
his
very important argument
for its
teachability.
To
consider
bigots
(or
those
with only "chauvinistic
empa-
thy")
to be
morally inferior
on a
con-
stitutional
basis seems more
a
retal-
iation
against
the
false
accusation
of
black intellectual inferiority than
an
assertion
based
on
evidence.
As
a
social scientist whose early
re-
search
contributed
to a
national policy
of
school desegregation
and as one
who
continues
to
exert
positive
influ-
ence
on
education
as a
regent
of the
state
of New
York,
Clark takes
an
unduly
pessimistic position regarding
social change through social action
and
education.
This
position may,
however,
be
consistent
with
his
call
(Clark,
1971)
for a
biochemical
ap-
proach
to the
control
of
national
and
international leaders
as
well
as
crim-
inals.
Clark's
biological
emphasis
detracts
unnecessarily
from
the
critically
im-
portant topics
of his
article—the
teachability
of
empathy
and the
need
to
control human destructiveness
by
education
in
empathy.
In
pointing
out
the
neglect
of
these issues
by a be-
haviorist
research establishment
in
American psychology,
he
performs
a
service that should
be
supported
by
those
of us who
value
the
realm
of the
subjective,
a
realm
to
which empathy
is
a
major
access
route.
REFERENCES
Clark,
K. B, The
pathos
of
power:
A
psy-
chological
perspective.
American Psy-
chologist,
1971,
26,
1047-1057.
Clark,
K. B.
Empathy:
A
neglected
topic
in
psychological
research.
American
Psychologist,
1980,
35,
187-190.
A
Reply
to
Clark's "Empathy"
Phyllis
Newton Hallenbeck
4805
Wood
Street
Willoughby,
Ohio
Very
often
in
psychology
we
have
to
redefine
words,
or
refine
their mean-
ings,
in
order
to
accurately describe
what
we
mean
as
psychologists.
It ap-
pears that
the
term
empathy
is
such
a
word.
If by
empathy
we
mean tak-
ing
other people's points
of
view,
or
walking
in
another pair
of
shoes, then
the
current dictionary definitions
are
not
sufficient
to
capture
the
psycho-
logical
concept.
In
the
studies
I
have read,
the de-
scriptive
phrases
for
empathy include
"consideration,
sympathy,
and
kind-
ness
for
others" (Bridges,
1931);
"sym-
pathetic concern
and
respect
for
per-
sons" (Smither,
1977);
"perspectivistic
thinking"
(Chandler
&
Greenspan,
1972);
"a
vicarious
affective
re-
sponse"
(Feshbach
&
Roe,
1968);
and
"decentering"
(Chaplin
&
Keller,
1974). Flavell
and his
associates
(Flav-
ell,
Botkin,
Fry, Wright,
&
Jarvis,
1968)
see
role taking
as the
"process
in
which
the
individual somehow cog-
nizes, apprehends,
grasps.
. .
certain
attributes
of
another
individual."
Fur-
ther,
they observe that these attributes
are
often best described
as
inferential:
"the other's
needs,
his
intentions,
his
opinions
and
beliefs,
and his
emo-
tional,
perceptual
or
intellectual
ca-
pacities
and
limitations"
(p. 5).
Role
taking
by
children
in the
dimension
of
space
is an
exception
to
this
de-
scription, depending mainly
on the
child's
ability
to
shift
his or her
mental
reference
points spatially. Role taking
in
communication
and
cognitive
skills
is
very much based
on
nonperceptible
attributes
of the
other person.
Affec-
tive role taking (empathy) depends
on
grasping
the
emotional attributes
of
the
other
and
"usually
entail[s]
affec-
tive responses
in the
self"
(p.
227).
According
to
Flavell
et
al.,
then,
em-
pathy
is one
dimension
of a
devel-
opmental
skill
called
role
taking.
It
seems
to me
that
"consideration,
sympathy,
and
kindness"
and
"sym-
pathetic
concern
and
respect"
are the
end
products
of
empathy.
It is im-
portant
to
distinguish
a
state
or
con-
dition from
the
behaviors
which
stem
from
that state. "Having empathy"
is
an
ability,
or
condition,
if you
like.
It
is not
found
in
infants
and is
(usu-
ally)
found
in
adults—that
is, it is a
developmental characteristic.
What
we
really want
to
study
is how
human
beings arrive
at
this capacity
to
"feel
the
needs,
the
aspirations,
the
frustra-
tions,
the
joy,
the
sorrows,
the
anxi-
eties,
the
hurt,
indeed,
the
hunger
of
others
as if
they
were
his or her
own"
(Clark,
1980,
p.
188).
To
keep
our
thinking
clear, these must
be
thought
of
as
behaviors deriving from
em-
pathic
ability,
rather than
as
empathy
itself.
Other descriptive phrases men-
tioned ("perspectivistic thinking,"
"vicarious
affective
response,"
and
"decentering") appear
to
bring
an-
other facet into consideration. Taking
another's
point
of
view
or
walking
in
someone else's shoes implies
mooing
or
shifting
one's
point
of
view.
In the
words
of
Chandler
and
Greenspan
(1972),
to
have empathy children
must
be
able
"to
successfully
abandon
their
own
egocentric perspectives
and
adopt
the
points
of
view
of
others"
(p.
104). This
is the
concept missing
AMERICAN
PSYCHOLOGIST
•
FEBRUARY
1981
• 225