When one hears the word "empathy", the mind automatically flashes an image or ignites an emotion. Empathy generally triggers definitions that relate to good, helpful, and beneficial. However, here one builds a preconception of empathy through experience. The opposite is also true; empathy can trigger definitions like bad, harmful, and self-destructive. Which definition is true? Neither, as each interpretation is true to the interpreter. A debate thus ignites, and the different sides tear at one another like primal beasts. Ironically, animals provide a stellar introduction to the effects of empathy.
Empathy can be witnessed in its simplest state in animals. A study done at Northwestern University with a group of rhesus monkeys realized that they could deliver food to themselves by pulling a chain; however, this would deliver a shock to one of the monkeys. After realizing this, the monkeys refused to pull the chain. These monkeys chose to starve rather than to harm another monkey, thereby hurting themselves. So this alludes to the question: Is empathy self-destructive? It depends on how one defines empathy.
A case study done by Tina Singer and her colleagues at UCL showed that we have difficulty distinguishing between what others feel and what we feel. The study consisted of 16 romantic couples who took turns observing their partners being shocked. The regions of the brain that responded to pain registered in both the physical and emotional region. If the origin of distress is not clearly distinguished by the individual, one can examine, as Young concludes, that it is possible to "catch pain", or otherwise described as emotional contagion.
An example of emotional contagion can be seen in the lives of health care professionals. When on the job, health care professionals constantly witness the distress of patients and even coworkers. The constant exposure to distress in the working environment leads to higher chances of emotional contagion. This eventually causes many cases of empathy burnout. Though not everyone is a health care professional, individuals in today's modernizing world could see themselves exposed to similar situations. Contagion here clearly displays a self-destructive quality.
Simmons, a philosophy professor at GVS University, argues that contagion is separate from empathy. Contagion as he views it is an “automatic, involuntary, reflexive process of mimicry,” which he discredits as being empathy in its fullest form. Empathy to him is where one reaches out and actively imagines and feels the emotional state of the other. This article does not deny the fact that contagion does occur but simply states that contagion does not classify as empathy but simply contagion.
If one takes Simmons's view, contagion causes the self-destructive qualities and not empathy. Even if Simmons agreed in definition, Simmons would point out that empathy does not have to be solely focused on pain. For example, one can witness a contagion of overwhelming emotions like pride and excitement when attending a college football game. One can undeniably witness and experience the joys of others and experience it as his or her own in many cases.
LaFrance, a psychology professor at Yale university, agrees with Simmons. She asserts that empathy is understanding and engaging in the individual’s situation and sharing the individual’s emotions. Without both components, this leads to the problem of what LaFrance calls “observer myopia” and can be described to be a misconstrued assessment of an individual’s circumstances. An example of observer myopia can be seen when psychologists study a house buyer.
When asked the individual themselves to explain their decisions of buying a particular house, the individual will recognize reasons such as “open-floor plan, a great office…” etc., but the professional might attribute it to personality factors like “workaholic at heart but still likes to socialize.” However, a study where female undergraduates watched a video of two females’ conversation while actively empathizing with one of the conversers resulted in more accurate attributions. The standard observers, who were told not to engage empathetically, did unsurprisingly worse.
Why is observer myopia an important factor to note? Because here we are studying empathy and the situations that relate empathy to destructive or beneficial qualities. The attributions that one makes while declaring empathy good or bad has to consider the situational and personal factors of the supporting fact. When regarding health care professionals, as mentioned earlier, one has to take in take the situational factor that health care professionals are exposed purposely to distress because their job is to alleviate this distress. Before one states that empathy causes certain qualities, observer myopia should be taken into consideration.
Paul Bloom, professor of psychology and cognitive science at Yale University, also recognizes the destructive qualities of empathy. In his article, he presents a test developed by Vicki Helgeson and Heidi Fritz that graded test takers on how unselfish and empathetic they were. The test showed that people who scored high were indicated to have a higher chance of finding themselves in relationships where they gave support but didn't receive it. This is another form of empathetic distress and Bloom concludes that there might be an alternative to empathy.
Compassion, Bloom says, provides an alternate and less destructive path of caring for another individual. He provides an example through charitable giving; one does not have to place themselves in the starving children's shoes to be prompted to give money but simply recognize the fact that starving causes misery. Simmons would argue that empathy can accomplish this without fully indulging in the starving children's pain. Simmons' view would suggest that the user empathizes with the children's need for food and one's own need for food. The conflict in definitions and usage can be seen here yet again and many times throughout this debate.
But now when one hears the word "empathy", multiple dimensions of empathy are considered before attributing one attribute to empathy. Empathy is not just self-destructive or beneficial in every case because empathy, as displayed throughout this debate, is specialized in every way.
Simmons, Young, Waal, LaFrance, and Bloom sets a platform in which empathy is displayed, debated, and probed. The debate does point to some conclusions at this time. The modernizing world increases interactions thus increasing the possibility of contagion. The main conflicting point is the agreement between the definitions of empathy. Many view it to require both cognitive and emotional empathy. Others view it as just emotional empathy. One can conclude that the destructive or beneficial quality of empathy is user dependent and situational. Compassion, sympathy, and empathy are perceived to have different definitions but are still intricately woven into our interactions with one another.