Empathy involves sharing another’s emotional experience, while sympathy refers to feeling concern for someone in distress without necessarily experiencing their emotions.
Emotion regulation (ER) is the process of modifying one’s emotional reactions to meet situational demands. ER may facilitate sympathy by helping individuals manage vicarious distress, allowing them to focus on others’ needs rather than becoming overwhelmed.
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.
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
Key Points
- The meta-analysis examined associations between emotion regulation (ER) and empathy/sympathy in childhood and adolescence.
- Overall, there was a small but significant positive association between ER and empathy/sympathy (r = .19).
- When accounting for measurement conflation, ER was significantly associated with sympathy (r = .24) but not empathy (r = .04).
- Associations were generally consistent across sample characteristics like age, sex, and culture.
- Methodological factors like measurement conflation and use of physiological vs. self-report measures moderated effect sizes.
- The findings highlight the importance of distinguishing between empathy and sympathy conceptually and methodologically.
- Results suggest ER may be more critical for developing sympathy than empathy in childhood/adolescence.
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 comprehensive meta-analysis of studies examining associations between ER and empathy/sympathy in typically developing children and adolescents.
Procedure
- Systematic literature search of major databases (e.g., Web of Science, PsycInfo)
- Screening of abstracts and full texts based on inclusion criteria
- Coding of study characteristics and effect sizes by multiple coders
- Calculation of overall effect sizes and moderator analyses using random effects models
Sample
- 75 effect sizes from 58 studies
- Total N = 25,831 participants
- Ages ranged from infancy to late adolescence (0-18 years)
- Studies conducted across multiple countries/cultures
Measures
- Emotion regulation: Self-report, other-report, observational, and physiological (RSA) measures
- Empathy/sympathy: Self-report, other-report, and observational measures
- Coded for measurement conflation (e.g., empathy scales including sympathy items)
Statistical measures
- Random effects meta-analysis
- Moderator analyses using Q statistics
- Meta-regression for continuous moderators
- Publication bias assessed via funnel plot, trim-and-fill, and Egger’s test
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.
Hypothesis 2: The association between ER and empathy/sympathy will be moderated by measurement conflation.
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).
Hypothesis 4: Associations between ER and empathy/sympathy will be moderated by measurement method.
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.
However, the key insight is that this association appears to be driven primarily by sympathy rather than empathy when measurement issues are accounted for.
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.
This aligns with theories proposing that ER helps children manage vicarious distress and focus on others’ needs rather than becoming overwhelmed by personal distress.
These results extend previous research by clarifying the distinct roles of empathy and sympathy in relation to ER.
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.
However, the moderation by measurement approaches (e.g., physiological vs. self-report) indicates the need for multi-method assessment to fully capture these complex constructs.
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:
- Comprehensive literature search and coding
- Large combined sample size (N = 25,831)
- Inclusion of unpublished studies to mitigate publication bias
- Examination of multiple potential moderators
- Careful consideration of measurement issues (conflation, shared method/informant variance)
- Differentiation of empathy and sympathy
- Inclusion of both self-report and physiological measures of ER
Limitations
This study also has several methodological limitations, including:
- Cross-sectional nature of included studies limits causal inferences
- Reliance on self-report measures for many studies
- Limited number of studies for some moderator categories (e.g., non-Western samples)
- Exclusion of clinical populations limits generalizability
- Focus on affective aspects of ER and empathy may not capture full complexity of constructs
- Potential language bias due to inclusion of only English-language publications
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:
- Differentiation of empathy and sympathy: Researchers and practitioners should carefully distinguish these constructs, as they appear to have different relationships with ER.
- Promotion of sympathy: Interventions aiming to increase sympathetic concern may benefit from incorporating ER training.
- Measurement approaches: Studies should use unconflated measures and multi-method assessment to accurately capture ER, empathy, and sympathy.
- Developmental considerations: While associations appear largely consistent across childhood and adolescence, early infancy may require distinct theoretical and measurement approaches.
- Cultural generalizability: The similar patterns across cultures suggest these may be fundamental aspects of social-emotional development, but more research in non-Western contexts is needed.
- Clinical applications: Understanding links between ER and sympathy could inform treatments for conditions characterized by empathy/sympathy deficits (e.g., conduct problems, autism spectrum disorders).
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
Christensen, K. J., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Busby, D. M., Hardy, S. A., & Day, R. D. (2011). Relational and social-cognitive correlates of early adolescents’ forgiveness of parents. Journal of adolescence, 34(5), 903-913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.01.001
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
- How might the distinction between empathy and sympathy inform interventions to promote prosocial behavior in children?
- What are potential explanations for why emotion regulation appears more strongly related to sympathy than empathy?
- How could future studies address the limitations of cross-sectional designs in examining links between emotion regulation and empathy/sympathy?
- What are the implications of these findings for understanding social-emotional development in clinical populations (e.g., autism spectrum disorders)?
- How might cultural factors influence the relationships between emotion regulation, empathy, and sympathy? How could future research better address cross-cultural variations?
