Empathy involves sharing another’s emotional experience, while sympathy refers to feeling concern for someone in distress without necessarily experiencing their emotions.
In contrast, the relationship between ER and empathy is less clear, as empathic responses can occur automatically without regulation.
Understanding these distinctions is crucial for interpreting the complex interplay between emotional processes in social-emotional development.
Key Points
Rationale
This meta-analysis aimed to clarify associations between emotion regulation (ER) and empathy/sympathy in childhood and adolescence.
While ER, empathy, and sympathy are considered key components of social-emotional development (Malti, 2021), empirical evidence on their interrelations has been mixed.
Some studies find positive associations between ER and empathy/sympathy (e.g., Jambon et al., 2019), while others report null or negative links (e.g., Christensen et al., 2011).
These inconsistencies may stem from variations in how constructs are defined and measured. Despite longstanding arguments to distinguish empathy and sympathy (Eisenberg, 2000), many researchers use the terms interchangeably.
Additionally, ER measures often conflate emotional and behavioral regulation.
By meta-analytically examining these associations and potential moderators, this study aimed to clarify when and why ER relates to empathy and/or sympathy across development.
A key goal was to test if ER differentially relates to empathy versus sympathy when accounting for measurement issues.
This analysis addresses important conceptual and methodological gaps in understanding the foundations of social-emotional competence in childhood and adolescence.
Method
The researchers conducted a comprehensivemeta-analysis of studiesexamining associations between ER and empathy/sympathy in typically developing children and adolescents.
Procedure
Sample
Measures
Statistical measures
Results
Hypothesis 1:There will be a significant positive association between ER and empathy/sympathy.
Result:Supported. Overall combined effect size r = .19, p < .001.
Result:Supported. Studies with multiply conflated empathy/sympathy measures showed larger effects (r = .40) than unconflated measures (r = .14).
Hypothesis 3:ER will be more strongly associated with sympathy than empathy when accounting for measurement conflation.
Result:Supported. For unconflated measures, ER was significantly associated with sympathy (r = .24, p < .001) but not empathy (r = .04, p = .38).
Result:Partially supported. Nonphysiological ER measures showed larger effects than RSA measures. Shared-method/informant variance inflated effects.
Hypothesis 5:Associations will be consistent across sample characteristics (e.g., age, sex, culture).
Result:Largely supported. Few significant differences across demographic moderators, except lower effects in infancy/toddlerhood vs. older ages.
Insight
This meta-analysis provides the first comprehensive synthesis of research on associations between emotion regulation (ER) and empathy/sympathy in childhood and adolescence.
The overall small but significant positive association suggests that better ER relates to higher empathy/sympathy across development.
The finding that ER was significantly associated with sympathy but not empathy (for unconflated measures) is particularly informative.
It suggests that the ability to regulate one’s emotions may be more critical for developing sympathetic concern for others than for the more automatic process of empathic arousal.
They highlight the importance of differentiating these constructs both conceptually and methodologically – something many past studies have failed to do.
The findings also demonstrate how measurement conflation can lead to inflated or misleading effect sizes, particularly for empathy.
The largely consistent results across age (except early infancy), sex, and culture suggest these associations may reflect fundamental aspects of social-emotional development.
Future research should prioritize longitudinal and experimental designs to clarify causal and developmental processes.
Studies examining potential mediators (e.g., attention allocation, cognitive reappraisal) could further elucidate mechanisms linking ER to sympathy.
Additionally, research on clinical populations could reveal how these associations may differ in the context of psychopathology.
Strengths
The study had many methodological strengths, including:
Limitations
This study also has several methodological limitations, including:
These limitations suggest caution in generalizing results, particularly to clinical populations or non-Western cultures.
The cross-sectional data also prevent strong conclusions about developmental processes or causal relationships between ER and empathy/sympathy.
Implications
The results have significant implications for understanding social-emotional development and informing interventions:
Variables that may influence the results include measurement approach, presence of psychopathology, and specific ER strategies assessed.
The findings underscore the complexity of social-emotional processes and the need for nuanced, developmentally-sensitive research and interventions.
References
Primary reference
Yavuz, H. M., Colasante, T., Galarneau, E., & Malti, T. (2024). Empathy, sympathy, and emotion regulation: A meta-analytic review.Psychological Bulletin, 150(1), 27–44.https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000426
Other references
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development.Annual review of psychology,51(1), 665-697.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665
Jambon, M., Colasante, T., Peplak, J., & Malti, T. (2019). Anger, sympathy, and children’s reactive and proactive aggression: Testing a differential correlate hypothesis.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,47, 1013-1024.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-018-0498-3
Malti, T. (2021). Kindness: A perspective from developmental psychology.European Journal of Developmental Psychology,18(5), 629-657.https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2020.1837617
Keep Learning
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
