10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Received: 16 October 2015 Revised: 14 December 2018 Accepted: 20 December 2018
DOI: 10.1002/job.2348

THE JOB ANNUAL REVIEW

“I feel your pain”: A critical review of organizational research on

empathy
Malissa A. Clark1* | Melissa M. Robertson1* | Stephen Young2*

1
Department of Psychology, University of
Georgia, Georgia, U.S.A. Summary
2
Global Research and Evaluation, Center for Empathy, a multidimensional construct comprised of cognitive, affective, and behav-
Creative Leadership, Greensboro, North
ioral dimensions, has been advanced as a critical predictor of prosocial behavior and
Carolina, U.S.A.
Correspondence
effectiveness in the workplace. However, despite organizational interest in empathy,
Malissa Clark and Melissa Robertson, there is a lack of consensus on what empathy is, how empathy should be measured,
Department of Psychology, University of
Georgia, 125 Baldwin St., Athens, Georgia
and how empathy research can meaningfully contribute to our understanding of
30602, U.S.A. organizational behavior. This paper aims to provide a roadmap for researchers and
Email: [email protected];
[email protected]
practitioners interested in empathy in the workplace. We first provide an updated
Stephen Young, Global Research and overview of the state of the broader multidisciplinary literature on empathy. On the
Evaluation, Center for Creative Leadership, 1 basis of this literature, we outline the three dimensions of empathy, discuss the
Leadership Pl., Greensboro, North Carolina
27410, U.S.A. distinctions between state/trait and observer/judged empathy, and compare empathy
Email: [email protected] with related constructs. This integrated multidimensional conceptualization provides
the basis for our critical review and recommendations. We review the organizational
research on empathy (1983–2018), identifying critical issues with how empathy has
been conceptualized, measured, and designed, and offer practical recommendations
for the advancement of organizational research on empathy. We conclude by
highlighting two fundamental questions: (a) is empathy associated with important
outcomes of interest to organizations and employees, and (b) can empathy be changed,
and if so, how?

KEY W ORDS

affective empathy, behavioral empathy, cognitive empathy, empathy, judged empathy

“I believe empathy is the most essential quality of 1 | I NT R O DU CT I O N

civilization.” Roger Ebert (2010, May 19)
For most employees, work is an inherently social activity. As such,
“Students of empathy can seem a cantankerous lot. work often involves understanding others' mental states, experiencing
Although they typically agree that empathy is shared affective states with others, and demonstrating that one
important, they often disagree about why it is understands and/or experiences what another person is feeling. These
important, about what effects it has, about where it experiences reflect empathy—a multidimensional construct underlying
comes from, and even about what it is.” Batson (2009) how human beings understand and relate to one another. Empathy
has been examined in relation to a range of organizational phenomena,
*These authors are contributed equally to the development of this article. such as organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., Settoon &
We would like to thank James LeBreton for his support and helpful comments on
Mossholder, 2002), leadership emergence (Wolff, Pescosolido, &
an earlier version of this article and Felicia Corbett for her assistance in article
retrieval. We also thank editors Paul Harvey and Marie Dasborough and the two Druskat, 2002), and interpersonal justice (Patient & Skarlicki, 2010).
anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback during the review process. In addition, recent theoretical papers have identified empathy as a

166 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job J Organ Behav. 2019;40:166–192.
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLARK ET AL. 167

critical construct for predicting organizational behavior, including agree on what exactly empathy is (and is not). Conceptual confusion
leader–member exchange (Cropanzano, Dasborough, & Weiss, 2017), has been so pervasive that scholars have lamented that there are as
crisis management (Kӧnig, Graf‐Vlachy, Bundy, & Little, 2018), corpo- many definitions of empathy as there are scholars studying the con-
rate philanthropy (Muller, Pfarrer, & Little, 2014), and forgiveness struct (e.g., Decety & Jackson, 2004; Zaki, 2014). For example, Cuff
(Fehr & Gelfand, 2012). The importance of empathy in the workplace et al. (2016) identified 43 distinct definitions/conceptualizations of
has also been highlighted by recent popular press articles centered on empathy in their review.
developing and managing empathy at work (Loder, 2016; Waytz, Although a unified definition will likely always remain elusive,
2016) and organizational practices aimed at increasing employee scholars now largely recognize empathy as a multidimensional con-
empathy (e.g., Ford's “empathy belly”; Beasley, 2016; Apple's “Genius struct operating at both trait and state levels (Cuff et al., 2016). With
Manual”; Biddle, 2012). few exceptions, scholars include both cognitive (i.e., understanding
Despite the field's interest in empathy, the organizational litera- others' internal states) and affective (i.e., feeling congruent emotions
ture lacks consensus on how empathy should be conceptualized, mea- with others) dimensions in their definitions of empathy. Some scholars
sured, and studied. Although diversity of perspectives on empathy is provide evidence that empathy also has a behavioral (i.e., demonstra-
not inherently problematic (Cuff, Brown, Taylor, & Howat, 2016; Duan tions of cognitive and affective empathy) dimension (e.g., Van der
& Hill, 1996), research in organizational behavior lacks agreement on Graaff et al., 2016).
basic features of the construct of empathy, such as whether empathy
is a state or a trait, the dimensionality of empathy, and the extent to
which empathy is unique from other constructs. Such widespread lack 2.1 | Affective empathy
of agreement about what empathy means is a serious concern in orga-
nizational research and practice. It means that whenever we theorize Affective empathy, or feeling the same affective state as another per-
about empathy or try to measure empathy, we are thinking about son, is thought to be the phylogenetically earliest system of empathy
and measuring it in very different ways. As a consequence, our field (de Waal, 2008; Gonzalez‐Liencres, Shamay‐Tsoory, & Brüne, 2013).
has a limited understanding of the impact of empathy on outcomes For example, infants as young as 1 or 2 days old tend to cry more
of interest to organizations and employees. loudly in response to another infant's cry than nonhuman noise (Sagi
The aims of this paper are (a) to provide an updated review of the & Hoffman, 1976). The concept of affective empathy draws primarily
construct of empathy to encourage better alignment between organiza- from the simulation perspective (Gallese & Goldman, 1998), which
tional research on empathy and the broader empathy literature, (b) to states humans instinctively respond to other people's affective states
critically review organizational research on empathy in terms of concep- through the perception–action mechanism (PAM). According to
tualization, measurement, and research design, and (c) to provide rec- PAM, when an observer perceives a target's affective state, the
ommendations and priorities for future research on empathy in observer's own neural representation is automatically and uncon-
organizations. To accomplish these goals, we first provide an updated sciously activated to match the perceived affective state of the target
overview of the state of the broader multidisciplinary literature on (Preston & de Waal, 2002). Thus, affective states are transmitted
empathy. On the basis of this literature, we outline the three dimensions between people, such that the observer comes to feel the same affec-
of empathy, discuss the distinctions between state/trait and tive state as the target. Affective empathy has also been proposed to
observer/judged empathy, and compare empathy with related con- occur via social‐cognitive mechanisms, such as appraising a target's
structs. Drawing from the cumulative body of research on empathy, situation in the same way as the target (Wondra & Ellsworth, 2015),
we then critically review the organizational literature on empathy and through cognitive empathy (e.g., Stotland, 1969).
(1983–2018), identifying critical issues in empathy research and offer- Many neurological studies have focused on identifying the spe-
ing recommendations for how researchers can overcome these issues. cific brain regions associated with affective empathy (for reviews,
We conclude by highlighting two fundamental questions for organiza- see Bernhardt & Singer, 2012; Fan, Duncan, Greck, & Northoff,
tional research on empathy: (a) is empathy associated with important 2011). A typical approach in these studies is to examine whether the
outcomes of interest to organizations and employees, and (b) can empa- same neural networks are activated during firsthand affective experi-
thy be changed, and if so, how? ences and when witnessing someone else undergoing that same affec-
tive experience. For example, Singer et al. (2004) found that the same
areas of the brain were activated when women received electric
2 | MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUALI- shocks and when women witnessed their partners receiving electric
Z A T I O N S OF E M P A T H Y shocks. These findings provide evidence that the experience of affec-
tive empathy is neurologically similar to the experience of firsthand
Although the concept of empathy is said to date back to “the beginning affective states. Importantly, these patterns of neurological activation
of philosophical thought” (Stotland, Matthews, Sherman, Hansson, & differ from those associated with other dimensions of empathy
Richardson, 1978, p. 11), Edward Titchener (1909) is credited as the first (Shamay‐Tsoory, Aharon‐Peretz, & Perry, 2009).
to translate the German concept of Einfühlung to English. Since then, There is some debate in the empathy literature regarding whether
thousands of research studies have examined the role of empathy in affective empathy involves feeling a congruent affective state with
human behavior across a wide variety of disciplines. Despite the exten- another person, or merely a similar affective state to another person
sive amount of interest in the construct, researchers have struggled to (Cuff et al., 2016). In our view, expanding the definition of affective
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
168 CLARK ET AL.

empathy to include feeling similar states to another person has con- Debate exists in the literature about the extent to which cognitive
tributed to the confusion of affective empathy and distinct discrete empathy is synonymous with perspective taking. Perspective taking is
emotions, such as sympathy/compassion. Moreover, both PAM and defined as “the process of imagining the world from another's vantage
appraisal perspectives of affective empathy focus on emotion congru- point or imagining oneself in another's shoes” (Galinsky, Ku, & Wang,
ence as the hallmark of affective empathy. Therefore, following de 2005, p. 110) and is one dimension of Davis' (1983) original conceptual-
Vignemont and Singer (2006), we define affective empathy as affec- ization of empathy. Although the terms cognitive empathy and perspec-
tive congruence. However, we note that congruence is considered a tive taking are sometimes used interchangeably (see Ku, Wang, &
matter of degree, rather than a discrete state involving an “exact Galinsky, 2015 for a recent review of perspective taking), researchers
match” of valence, intensity, and neurological activation between a have since distinguished between the cognitive process of perspective
target and an observer (de Vignemont & Singer, 2006). taking and the outcome of cognitive empathy (i.e., actually understanding
There is also debate about the extent to which affective empathy a target's internal state). Thus, although the act of perspective taking can
requires that the observer is conscious that the target is the source of result in cognitive empathy, it is not synonymous with cognitive empathy.
his or her affective state (referred to as self–other distinction; Cuff Moreover, perspective taking is not the only cognitive process that
et al., 2016). Self–other distinction is often used to differentiate affec- can lead to cognitive empathy (Cuff et al., 2016; Jolliffe & Farrington,
tive empathy from other constructs involving affective sharing, such 2006). For example, cognitive empathy may also be achieved by attend-
as emotional contagion (de Vignemont & Singer, 2006). Despite this ing to others' emotions (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006) and reading and
theoretical distinction, the extent to which observers are conscious interpreting facial expressions (Besel & Yuille, 2010).
that the target's affective state is the cause of their own affective In sum, on the basis of our review of the literature and in line
reaction is rarely, if ever, measured in practice. As a result, affective with current conceptualizations of empathy, we define trait cognitive
empathy and emotional contagion research tend to be empirically empathy as the tendency to understand others' internal states (i.e., their
indistinguishable. Moreover, the PAM account of affective empathy thoughts and affective states), and state cognitive empathy as the state
explicitly states that neural representations are automatically and of understanding another person's internal state (i.e., his/her thoughts and
unconsciously activated in response to a target's affective state. Thus, affective state).
we do not view self–other distinction as a necessary component of
affective empathy. 2.3 | Behavioral empathy
On the basis of this review and in line with the majority of current
perspectives of empathy, we define trait affective empathy as the Some research has also focused on the behaviors involved in acting
tendency to experience affective states that are congruent with others' empathically. In general, the empathy literature focuses on two forms
affective states, and state affective empathy as the state of experiencing of empathic behavior: behavioral mirroring and empathic communica-
an affective state that is congruent with another person's affective state. tion. Behavioral mirroring, also often referred to as “motor empathy,”
refers to the mimicking of others' facial expressions, mannerisms, pos-
tures, and gestures (e.g., Chartrand & Larkin, 2012; Dimberg, 1990;
2.2 | Cognitive empathy Dimberg, Thunberg, & Elmehed, 2000). Behavioral mirroring can also
include verbal mimicry, which refers to the mimicking of syntax, lan-
Cognitive empathy refers to the tendency to understand, or the state of guage style, speech rate, and tone (e.g., Manson, Bryant, Gervais, &
understanding, others' internal states (i.e., thoughts and affective Kline, 2013; Meinecke & Kauffeld, 2018). Electromygraphic (EMG),
states). Cognitive empathy is thought to develop later than affective observational, and qualitative text analysis studies provide empirical
empathy, after children have acquired specific cognitive skills (e.g., mak- evidence for behavioral mirroring. For example, exposing participants
ing inferences, self–other distinction; de Waal, 2008; Shamay‐Tsoory, to photos of angry and happy faces produces automatic, spontaneous
2011). Cognitive empathy draws from the theory of mind perspective facial mirroring among participants high in trait empathy (Sonnby‐
(Wellman, 2014), which posits that people understand the mental states Borgström, Jonsson, & Svensson, 2003). Similarly, observational
of others through a system of rules derived from their own experiences research and text analysis finds that people automatically mimic
(Vachon, Lynam, & Johnson, 2014). Research has shown that a variety others' behavior (e.g., Chartrand & Bargh, 1999) and linguistic style
of cognitive strategies can result in cognitive empathy, including taking (e.g., Lord, Sheng, Imel, Baer, & Atkins, 2015). Although the neurolog-
a target's perspective, reading facial expressions, and accessing memo- ical network of behavioral mirroring appears to overlap with that of
ries of relevant previous situations (Cuff et al., 2016). affective empathy, there is also evidence that behavioral mirroring is
Neuroimaging and lesion studies have consistently demonstrated associated with greater activation in premotor areas compared with
that cognitive empathy is associated with activation of specific brain affective empathy (Carr, Iacoboni, Dubeau, Mazziotta, & Lenzi,
structures (i.e., medial prefrontal cortex, prenucleus, and temporo‐ 2003). These results suggest that behavioral mirroring may be at least
parietal junction) and that activation of these structures differs from partially neurologically distinguishable from affective empathy.
activation of structures associated with other dimensions of empathy Empathic communication—intentional behavior that demonstrates
(Decety & Cowell, 2014; Roca et al., 2011; Shamay‐Tsoory, 2011; cognitive and/or affective empathy to others—has also been studied in
Walter, 2012; Zaki, Weber, Bolger, & Ochsner, 2009). These studies a wide range of situations, including counseling sessions, sales
provide compelling evidence that cognitive and affective empathy rep- encounters, doctor–patient interactions, and between romantic part-
resent distinct neurological processes (Shamay‐Tsoory et al., 2009). ners (e.g., Drollinger, Comer, & Warrington, 2006; Silvester, Patterson,
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLARK ET AL. 169

Koczwara, & Ferguson, 2007). Examples of empathic communication often capture substantively meaningful differences in rater perspec-
include verbal expressions of understanding (e.g., paraphrasing), asking tives (e.g., Connelly & Ones, 2010; Lance, Hoffman, Gentry, & Baranik,
questions about thoughts and feelings, and nonverbal behavior such 2008), the empathy literature also reflects substantive differences
as head nodding (Kerig & Baucom, 2004; Shapiro & Gottman, 2004). between observer empathy and judged empathy. For example,
However, additional conceptual and empirical work is needed to iden- Barkham and Shapiro (1986) found that counselors' self‐reported
tify the breadth of behaviors involved in empathic communication and empathy ratings remained stable across initial and ongoing sessions
how these behaviors may differ for demonstrations of cognitive ver- with clients, whereas clients reported that counselors were more
sus affective empathy. empathic during ongoing sessions than initial sessions. Moreover, dif-
On the basis of this literature, we define trait behavioral empathy ferent counselor behaviors were differentially associated with empa-
as the tendency to engage in verbal and nonverbal behaviors (i.e., thy ratings for counselors and clients. Similarly, subsequent research
behavioral mirroring and/or empathic communication) that demonstrate has found that different interaction partners view different behaviors
affective and/or cognitive empathy, and state behavioral empathy as as indicative of empathy (e.g., Silvester et al., 2007). These findings
the state of engaging in verbal and nonverbal behaviors (i.e., behavioral indicate that observers and various interaction partners may perceive
mirroring and/or empathic communication) that demonstrate affective the observer's empathy quite differently on the basis of their different
and/or cognitive empathy. perspectives, goals, and features of the observer–partner relationship.
Davis' (1996) mediation model proposes that judged empathy is
as an outcome of observer empathy. This proposition is supported
3 | OTHER DISTINCTIONS IN EMPATHY by several studies finding that observer empathy predicts an interac-
R E S E A RC H tion partner's subsequent judgments of empathy (e.g., Dowell &
Berman, 2013; Maurer & Tindall, 1983). Experimental research has
In addition to the distinctions between the three dimensions of empa-
also shown that random assignment to empathy training is associated
thy, research has also distinguished between empathy as a trait and
with improvements in patient ratings of empathy (Riess, Kelley, Bailey,
empathy as a state. Empathy research and theory also distinguishes
Dunn, & Phillips, 2012), suggesting that observer empathy plays a
between the intraindividual experience of empathy (observer empathy)
causal role in determining judged empathy.
and others' perceptions of an observer's empathy (judged empathy).

3.1 | State and trait empathy 4 | COMPARING EMPATHY WITH OTHER

CONSTRUCTS
There is ample evidence from the multidisciplinary empathy literature
that empathy operates as both a trait and a state (Cuff et al., 2016). The multidimensional definitions of empathy overlap conceptually
Research using repeated‐measures designs has found that empathy with a number of different constructs. In this section, we compare
exhibits stable between‐person variance (Nezlek, Feist, Wilson, & these constructs with empathy, highlighting conceptual and empirical
Plesko, 2001; Toomey & Rudolph, 2017). Individual differences in distinctions as well as potential redundancies. We note that the nomo-
empathy have also been supported by neurological (e.g., Banissy, logical network of empathy relative to these constructs continues to
Kanai, Walsh, & Rees, 2012) and genetic (Christ, Carlo, & Stoltenberg, be debated and is difficult to establish given the definitional and mea-
2016; Hurlemann et al., 2010; Schneiderman, Kanat‐Maymon, Ebstein, surement problems in the empathy literature. Moreover, constructs
& Feldman, 2014; Wu, Li, & Su, 2012) evidence. that are theoretically distinguishable may not be empirically distinct
Research also indicates that empathy varies within‐person over (Le, Schmidt, Harter, & Lauver, 2010). Thus, considerable empirical
several days or even within the same day (Nezlek et al., 2001; Toomey work beyond what we describe in this section is needed to further
& Rudolph, 2017), suggesting that empathy also operates as a state that support theoretical distinctions between these constructs.
is responsive to situational cues. Experimental and neuroscience studies
demonstrate the power of situations for activating state empathy (e.g.,
4.1 | Sympathy/empathic concern/compassion
Jackson, Meltzoff, & Decety, 2005; Rameson, Morelli, & Lieberman,
2011). For example, state empathy can be activated by exposing people Though there are many definitions of sympathy and related constructs
to others' affective states (e.g., Jackson et al., 2005), guided perspective such as empathic concern and compassion in the literature, these con-
taking (e.g., Batson, Chang, Orr, & Rowland, 2002), or instructing structs all emerge from an appraisal of another person's suffering,
observers to behaviorally mirror targets (e.g., Stel & Vonk, 2010). involve feelings of concern for the suffering person's well‐being, and
are often accompanied by a desire to help the suffering person. His-
3.2 | Observer empathy and judged empathy torically, some scholars have discussed sympathy as a dimension of
empathy (e.g., Davis, 1983). However, the current consensus across
Davis' (1996) original work distinguishes an observer's intraindividual disciplines is that empathy and sympathy are distinct constructs (e.g.,
experience of empathy (what we term observer empathy) from interac- Bernhardt & Singer, 2012; Cuff et al., 2016; Davis, 2009; Gonzalez‐
tion partners' perceptions of the observer's empathy (referred to by Liencres et al., 2013; Ickes, 2003; Zaki, 2014).
Davis, 1996 as judged empathy). Following other research finding that A key difference between empathy and sympathy/empathic
differences between self‐ and other‐reports of the same construct concern/compassion is that affective empathy involves the experience
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
170 CLARK ET AL.

of affective states that are congruent with others' affective states. In by one person's behavior towards the other (e.g., Person A is angry
contrast, sympathy does not involve experiencing the same affective and takes out his or her anger on Person B, which in turn makes Per-
state as the target. For example, affective empathy occurs if an son B angry), or common causes (e.g., Person A and Person B are both
observer interacts with a distressed target and feels the target's dis- angry about a shared situation).
tress. However, sympathy/compassion would occur if the observer—
instead of feeling distressed—feels moved to alleviate the target's suf-
fering. In other words, “compassion and empathic concern can be
4.3 | Emotional intelligence
thought of as observers feeling for social targets without feeling as
Like the empathy literature, the emotional intelligence (EI) literature
those targets do” (Zaki, 2014, p. 1632, emphasis in original). Moreover,
has suffered from conceptual and measurement issues that have
affective empathy is possible any time an observer is exposed to a tar-
sparked vigorous debate among scholars (Ashkanasy & Duas, 2005;
get's affective state, regardless of the valence or appraisal of that
Joseph & Newman, 2010; Locke, 2005). Broadly, theoretical
state, whereas sympathy/compassion is only relevant when an
approaches to EI can be divided into ability models (e.g., Mayer,
observer perceives a target to be suffering (Bloom, 2016). Thus,
Caruso, & Salovey, 2000) and mixed‐models (e.g., Bar‐On, 1997). We
affective empathy may occur in a much broader range of situations
focus our discussion on how empathy relates to ability models of EI
compared with sympathy/compassion.
given the lack of evidence for the mixed‐model approach to EI (Joseph
Current conceptualizations describe sympathy/empathic concern/
& Newman, 2010; Joseph, Jin, Newman, & O'Boyle, 2015; van der Lin-
compassion as an emotional response to empathy (Bernhardt & Singer,
den et al., 2017).
2012; Davis, 2009; Gonzalez‐Liencres et al., 2013); this temporal order-
Ability models of EI focus on specific skills that are fundamental to
ing is supported by experimental evidence that manipulating cognitive
being emotionally intelligent. One of the most widely used ability
empathy increases subsequent sympathy (Stocks, Lishner, Waits, &
models is a four‐factor model of EI consisting of (a) the ability to per-
Downum, 2011). The empirical distinction between sympathy and
ceive emotions accurately, (b) the ability to use emotions to facilitate
empathy is also supported by research finding that empathy and sympa-
thought, (c) the ability to understand emotions and their meanings,
thy are associated with different neural activation patterns (e.g., Banissy
and (d) the ability to manage emotions (Mayer et al., 2000; Mayer &
et al., 2012; Klimecki, Leiberg, Ricard, & Singer, 2013) and are
Salovey, 1997). One of the four factors—emotion perception—has
differentially associated with a variety of outcomes (e.g., Longmire &
some overlap with our definition of trait cognitive empathy. Like cog-
Harrison, 2018).
nitive empathy, emotion perception involves understanding others'
emotions. However, emotion perception also differs conceptually
from cognitive empathy in a number of ways. First, whereas cognitive
4.2 | Emotional contagion and affective crossover empathy focuses exclusively on understanding others' internal states,
emotion perception also involves perceiving one's own emotions
Emotional contagion and affective crossover both capture the interin-
(Joseph & Newman, 2010). Second, cognitive empathy is more broadly
dividual transmission of affective states. As originally defined by
defined as the tendency to understand others' internal states (i.e.,
Hatfield, Cacioppo, and Rapson (1992), emotional contagion is “the
thoughts and affective states), whereas emotion perception is exclu-
tendency to automatically mimic and synchronize expressions, vocali-
sively focused on understanding emotions. Third, cognitive empathy
zations, postures, and movements with those of another person's and
is conceptualized as both a trait and a state, whereas emotion percep-
consequently, to converge emotionally” (p. 153–154). In our view, this
tion is considered a relatively stable ability (Joseph & Newman, 2010).
conceptualization of emotional contagion represents one possible
causal pathway among the dimensions of empathy, in which a compo-
nent of behavioral empathy (behavioral mirroring) results in subse- 4.4 | Empathic accuracy
quent affective empathy (emotional convergence). Despite this
definition of emotional contagion as a causal process, more recent Empathic accuracy is defined as the degree to which individuals accu-
research has tended to discuss emotional contagion more generally rately infer the thoughts and feelings of a target person (Ickes, Stinson,
as social sharing of emotion (e.g., Barsade, 2002). These more recent Bissonnette, & Garcia, 1990; Zaki, Bolger, & Ochsner, 2008). Some
conceptualizations of emotional contagion appear to be synonymous empathy researchers use the term empathic accuracy as a synonym
with affective empathy (e.g., Decety & Yoder, 2016; Hatfield, Rapson, for cognitive empathy (e.g., Zaki et al., 2008), whereas others view
& Le, 2009; Oishi et al., 2015). empathic accuracy as an outcome of cognitive empathy (e.g., Davis,
The concept of affective crossover has also been used in organi- 2009). In our view, empathic accuracy is conceptually equivalent to
zational research to understand the transmission of affect states from cognitive empathy, because we view “understanding” as synonymous
one person to another (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Wethington, with “accurately inferring” another person's thoughts and feelings.
1989; Westman, 2001; Westman & Etzion, 1995). Most research Thus, in the same way that affective empathy involves congruence
operationalizes affective crossover as the covariation between one between a target's affective state and an observer's affective state,
person's affect state and another person's affect state (e.g., Song, and the behavioral mirroring aspect of behavioral empathy involves
Foo, & Uy, 2008). According to Westman (2001), affective empathy congruence between a target's behavior and an observer's behavior,
is one mechanism for explaining how affective crossover occurs. How- cognitive empathy involves congruence of a target's internal state
ever, it is not the only mechanism; covariation can also be explained and an observer's perceptions of the target's internal state.
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLARK ET AL. 171

5 | S U M M A R Y— W H A T I S E M P A T H Y ? research on empathy, critically evaluating the extent to which the cur-

rent research base is able to provide answers to these questions, and
In sum, based on the cumulative interdisciplinary body of research on offering recommendations for addressing these fundamental ques-
empathy, empathy is considered a multilevel construct occurring at tions in future empathy research.
both the trait level (empathy across situations) and the state level
(empathy within situations). Additionally, the literature supports three
distinct dimensions of empathy: (a) understanding another person's 6.1 | Critical issues with conceptualizations of
internal state (cognitive empathy), (b) sharing another person's affec- empathy
tive state (affective empathy), and/or (c) behaviorally demonstrating
that one has understood another person's internal state and/or shared In evaluating empathy research in organizational behavior, we identi-
another person's affective state (behavioral empathy). Finally, research fied four key issues surrounding the conceptualization of empathy:
supports Davis' (1996) original proposition that the observer's experi-
ence of empathy influences others' judgments of the observer's empa- 1. Definitions of empathy do not recognize empathy as both a trait
thy (judged empathy). and a state
We draw from these established findings regarding the construct
of empathy to guide our review of organizational research on empa- Table 1 provides a detailed overview of how empathy was
thy. In particular, we evaluate the extent to which organizational defined in each of the 30 reviewed studies. As illustrated in these def-
research adequately addresses the multiple dimensions and levels of initions, empathy was most often defined in exclusively trait‐based or
empathy that have been identified in the broader literature. This mul- state‐based terms; empathy was rarely defined as both a trait and a
tidimensional and multilevel conceptualization allows us to critically state. This finding indicates that organizational research lacks consen-
evaluate where organizational research on empathy is lacking and pro- sus on the definition of empathy, and does not yet reflect the broader
vide specific recommendations for how organizational researchers can consensus that empathy is both a trait and a state (Cuff et al., 2016).
overcome these limitations. Because construct definitions (ideally) drive methodological choices,
using solely trait or state definitions of empathy may undermine inves-
tigation of empathy as a multilevel construct.
6 | CRITICAL REVIEW OF EMPATHY
RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 2. Definitions of empathy do not reflect the multidimensionality of
empathy
To critically examine organizational research on empathy, we carried
out a search in PsycINFO, Business Source Complete, and With one exception (Silvester et al., 2007), all studies reviewed
ABI/Inform for all articles mentioning empath* from 1983 through defined empathy in a way that omitted at least one dimension of empa-
2018. We chose a start date of 1983 because this was the year of thy. Although it is understandable that authors may not integrate the
Davis' (1983) seminal empathy article. To ensure comprehensive cov- newer dimension of behavioral empathy in their definitions, it is surpris-
erage of the major industrial/organizational and organizational behav- ing that both cognitive and affective dimensions are not included in
ior research base on empathy, we searched articles within top‐ranked many definitions, because there is longstanding and widespread accep-
journals identified by Zickar and Highhouse (2001).1 A total of 319 tance of empathy as a multidimensional construct with these dimen-
unique studies were found as a result of this search. sions in the broader empathy literature (Cuff et al., 2016; Strayer,
In order to be included in the review, articles had to use adult 1987). We believe that using construct‐deficient definitions of empathy
samples (or student samples with a clear organizational focus), use has undermined progress in understanding how different dimensions of
quantitative methods, and purport to measure or manipulate a dimen- empathy may have differential effects on important outcomes of inter-
sion of empathy. Articles purporting to measure empathic est to organizations. Moreover, findings from these studies may be
concern/sympathy (e.g., Watkins, Fehr, & He, 2018) or other‐oriented incorrectly interpreted as involving the broader construct of empathy,
empathy (a component of the prosocial personality reflecting when in fact they involve only a single dimension of empathy, and find-
empathic concern; Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger, & Freifeld, 1995) were ings may not be consistent across dimensions.
excluded. Of the 319 unique studies reviewed, 30 met the inclusion
criteria and were reviewed in detail (see Table 1). 3. The jingle fallacy is prevalent in empathy research
On the basis of our review of the articles in Table 1, we identify
several critical issues with the conceptualization, measurement, and The jingle fallacy occurs when authors erroneously assume that
design of empathy research in the organizational literature. In turn, two different things are the same (Kelley, 1927). Our review indicates
we provide recommendations for how researchers can overcome that the jingle fallacy often occurs in empathy research when authors
these issues to advance research on empathy in organizations. We include sympathy as a dimension of empathy (e.g., Scott, Colquitt,
conclude by identifying two fundamental questions for organizational Paddock, & Judge, 2010), or define empathy as sympathy/compassion
1
(e.g., Hershcovis & Bhatnagar, 2017; Longmire & Harrison, 2018). As
We also included Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, The
Leadership Quarterly, and Journal of Business and Psychology on the basis of their noted above, the current evidence and consensus indicates that empa-
rising impact factors over the past decade. thy and sympathy are different constructs with different theoretical
 172

TABLE 1 Summary of studies included in review

Authors Definition Measure of empathy Sample, design, and analyses

Bagozzi “… empathy consists of three components: Study 2: Study 2:
et al. (2013) (1) an emotional reaction that might include Emotional state exposure Sample: Boundary spanners from a variety
a sharing of the other's feelings [state, affective], [state, affective, experimental]† of firms who were attending a
(2) a cognitive capacity to take the perspective Activation of mirror neuron system management training institute
of the other [trait, cognitive], and as shown on fMRI [state, associated with a university
(3) a monitoring mechanism that registers affective, observational] Design: Within‐subjects experimental
the source of the experienced affect in a way
differentiating self from other
[state, other] …” (p. 1770)
Daniels “Empathy occurs when another recognizes the 2‐item measure of perceived Sample: Managers and administrators
et al. (2014) expressor's affective state and identifies with empathy [state, cognitive at a call center for a government agency
the expressor's perspective on the reasons for (judged), self‐report] Design: Within‐subjects repeated
that affective state …” (p. 787) [state, cognitive] measures (experience sampling)
DeCelles “Defined as an affective state that reflects Study 3b: Study 3b:
et al. (2018) understanding of a congruent emotional state 3‐item adjective checklist Sample: Customer service workers recruited
in another (target) person (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987), measure [state, other/ from Prolific Academic survey platform
empathy is a blend of other‐focused emotions that sympathy, self‐report] Design: Between‐subjects experimental
foster connection (including, for example, discrete
feelings of sympathy and compassion towards others
experiencing distress...”
(p. 5) [state, cognitive/affective/sympathy]
Detert “Empathy is an individual difference that describes 10‐item International Personality Sample: Undergraduate students
et al. (2008) the degree to which an individual notices and is Item Pool Empathy subscale Design: Multiwave cross‐sectional survey
concerned about the needs or concerns of others …” [trait, other/cognitive/affective
(p. 376) [trait, cognitive/sympathy] /sympathy, self‐report]
Firth‐Cozens (1992) None provided Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Sample: Junior doctors
Empathy (Mehrabian & Design: Multiwave cross‐sectional survey
Epstein, 1972) [trait,
other/affective/sympathy/
behavioral, self‐report]
Fox and “The term ‘empathy’ has been used to refer to two 3 Subscales of the IRI were Sample: Undergraduate students
Spector (2000) distinct phenomena, cognitive empathy (role taking) used to measure empathy: Design: Cross‐sectional survey/Observational
and affective reactivity (Davis, 1996). Cognitive role
taking is when one person attempts to understand 1) Davis (1996) perspective‐taking
another by imagining the other's perspective. It is the subscale of IRI [trait, cognitive, self‐report]
ability to understand the other person's psychological 2) Davis (1996) empathic concern
point of view, including her/his likely reaction to one's subscale of IRI [trait, sympathy/
own behavior [state/trait, cognitive]...Affective reactivity, other, self‐report]
on the other hand, refers to emotional outcomes 3) Davis (1996) personal distress
experienced by the observer in response to subscale of IRI [trait, other, self‐report]
(usually distressed) emotional displays by another
person [state, sympathy/other]” (p. 205)
Hershcovis and “...empathy, an other‐focused emotion produced when Studies 2 and 3: 5 items adapted from Studies 2 and 3:
Bhatnagar (2017) people perceive that others are suffering Batson et al. (1988) [state, sympathy/ Sample: Mechanical Turk workers
(Batson, Fultz, & Schoenrade, 1987)” other, self‐report] Design: Between‐subjects experimental
(p. 1529) [state, sympathy]
CLARK

(Continues)
ET AL.

10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 TABLE 1 (Continued)
CLARK

Authors Definition Measure of empathy Sample, design, and analyses

“… empathy is a deontic emotion focused on the
ET AL.

well‐being of the target.” (p. 1539) [state, sympathy]

Ho and “[Perspective taking is]... a cognitive, intellectual form Studies 1 and 2: Perspective taking Study 1:
Gupta (2012) [of empathy] reflecting the cognitive act of adopting towards guests [trait, cognitive, Sample: Customer‐contact employees
the perspective of another and understanding or self‐report] and empathic concern at a luxury hotel in Singapore
recognizing that person's thoughts and perspectives” towards guests [trait, sympathy/cognitive] Design: Cross‐sectional survey
(p. 436) [state, cognitive] modified from Axtell, Parker, Holman, and Study 2:
Totterdell (2007) Sample: Customer‐contact employees
“Another form of empathy that researchers have at two luxury hotel chains in Singapore
considered is affective in nature, specifically the Design: Multisource cross‐sectional survey
feelings and emotions (e.g., concern, compassion)
that an individual experiences as a result of another's
emotional state or condition, and this has been termed
empathic concern, sympathy, and empathic emotion …”
(p. 436) [state, sympathy]

“… a third form of empathy exists in the form of emotions

that match or are similar to those of another person …”
(p. 436) [state, affective]
Joireman “Dispositional empathy reflects the extent to which an Studies 2 and 3: Davis (1983) perspective Study 2:
et al. (2006) individual can take another person's perspective taking and empathic concern subscales Sample: Engineers from an oil refinery in
(perspective taking) and has warm, tender feelings of (averaged together) [trait, cognitive/ a large multinational conglomerate
concern for another's wellbeing (empathic concern; sympathy/other, self‐report] Design: Between‐subjects experimental
Davis, 1983).” (p. 1310) [trait, cognitive/sympathy] Study 3:
Sample: Engineers from an oil refinery in
a large multinational conglomerate
and their supervisors
Design: Multisource cross‐sectional survey
Kamdar “… the psychological construct of empathy captures at Davis (1983) perspective‐taking subscale Sample: Engineers and their immediate
et al. (2006) least two distinguishable but related phenomena— [trait, cognitive, self‐report] supervisors from an oil refinery
perspective taking as the tendency to be aware of Design: Multisource cross‐sectional survey
and adopt the perspective of the other (cognitive empathy) Davis (1983) empathic concern subscale
[trait, cognitive] and empathic concern as the tendency of IRI [trait, sympathy/other, self‐report]
to respond emotionally to the fortunes and misfortunes
of others (affective empathy …) [trait, affective]” (p. 843)
Kellett “Salovey and Mayer (1990, p. 194) … define empathy as 7‐item empathy measure from the Emotional Sample: Graduate and undergraduate
et al. (2002) “the ability to comprehend another's feelings and to Competence Inventory [trait, cognitive organizational behavior students
re‐experience them oneself’” (judged)/behavioral (judged)/ Design: Multisource cross‐sectional survey
(p. 524) [trait, cognitive/affective] other, other‐report]†
Kellett “Empathy, defined as “the ability to comprehend another's 5 items measuring interactive empathy Sample: Graduate and undergraduate
et al. (2006) feelings and to re‐experience them oneself” [trait, affective (judged)/behavioral organizational behavior students
(Salovey & Mayer, 1990, pp. 194–195) …” (judged)/other, other‐report] Design: Multisource cross‐sectional survey
(p. 147) [trait, cognitive/affective]
Lindsey “Empathy is a dispositional construct that captures the 10‐item International Personality Item Pool Sample: Incoming freshman at a
et al. (2015) capacity to understand others' emotions and Empathy subscale [trait, other/cognitive/ Southern University
experiences.” (p. 609) [trait, cognitive] affective/sympathy, self‐report] Design: Between‐subjects experimental

(Continues)
173

10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 TABLE 1 (Continued)
174

Authors Definition Measure of empathy Sample, design, and analyses

Longmire and “Empathic concern (or simply, “empathy”) is an emotional Various Sample: Various
Harrison (2018) response to another's hardship (Davis, 1980)” Design: Meta‐analysis
(p. 894) [state, sympathy]
McNeely and “Empathy, one's sensitivity to the emotional Davis (1980) empathic concern subscale Sample: Female departmental and
Meglino (1994) experiences of another …” (p. 837) [trait, other] [trait, sympathy/other, self‐report] administrative secretaries at a U.S. university
Design: Multisource cross‐sectional survey
Meinecke and “We define leader empathy as a leaders' ability to Language style matching using the Linguistic Sample: Audiotaped supervisor/
Kauffeld (2018) accurately recognize and understand the emotional Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) program employee dyadic appraisal interviews
reactions and feelings of their followers (Pennebaker, Francis, & Booth, 2001) Design: Multisource, multi‐method
(see Mahsud, Yukl, & Prussia, 2010). This understanding, [state, behavioral, text analysis] (observational, survey, text analysis)
in turn, helps leaders to respond appropriately to the
needs of their followers and to craft an appropriate 6 items measuring from a modified Assessment
(emotional) response.” (p. 3) [trait/state, cognitive/ of Empathic Communication in
behavioral] Medical Interviews (REM; Nicolai, Demmel, and
Hagen, 2007), as rated by assessors
[state, cognitive/behavioral/other
(judged), other‐report]
Molinsky, Grant, “… empathy, a state of emotional concern for another Batson's (1987) empathic concern scale Study 1:
and Margolis (2012) person in need, distress, or suffering …” [state, sympathy/other, self‐report] Sample: Working professional managers
(p. 28) [state, sympathy] Design: Between‐subjects experimental
Studies 2 and 3:
Sample: Undergraduate students
Design: Between‐subjects experimental
Morand (2001) “Mehrabian and Epstein (1972) define empathy as Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy Sample: MBA students employed full‐time
the ability to take the role of another, to be (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972) [trait, other/ Design: Cross‐sectional survey/
able to understand another's feelings, and to affective/sympathy/behavioral, self‐report] lab task (nonexperimental)
become actively involved in expressed emotions
of others.” (p. 25) [trait, affective/cognitive]
Park and “Empathy has been conceptualized and empirically Davis (1983) perspective‐taking subscale Sample: Kindergarten teachers in Korea
Raile (2010) examined as a multidimensional construct [trait, cognitive, self‐report] Design: Multisource cross‐sectional survey
(e.g., Dillard & Hunter, 1989; Stiff, Dillard,
Somera, Kim, & Sleight, 1988), Davis (1983) perspective‐taking subscale
and perspective taking has been viewed [trait, cognitive (judged), other‐report]
consistently as a key dimension of empathy …
Perspective taking is typically defined as the
tendency of an individual to adopt the viewpoint
of another...” (p. 570) [trait, cognitive]
Parker and “Empathy with suppliers refers to the extent to Empathy with suppliers [trait, other/cognitive/ Sample: Front‐line production employees
Axtell (2001) which employees empathize with a supplier, sympathy, self‐report] at a United Kingdom glass
in ways such as being concerned and manufacturing company
understanding about their problems or experiencing Positive attributions [trait, other, self‐report] Design: Multisource cross‐sectional survey
pleasure in their achievements”
(p. 1091) [state, sympathy/cognitive/affective]
Patient and “Cognitive empathy refers to being able to recognize Study 1: Davis (1980) empathic concern Study 1:
Skarlicki (2010) and predict the feelings of others (Davis, 1994) subscale [trait, sympathy/other, self‐report] Sample: Managers from a broad range of industries
[trait, cognitive]. Affective empathy, which is the Design: Between‐subjects experimental
focus of our research, involves the ability to Study 2: Experimenter verbally stated: Study 2:
CLARK

recognize emotional reactions to the suffering “Put yourself in the other person's shoes. Sample: Undergraduate students from Canada
ET AL.

(Continues)

10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 TABLE 1 (Continued)
CLARK

Authors Definition Measure of empathy Sample, design, and analyses

of another person. An important component of Try to imagine how they think Design: Between‐subjects experimental
ET AL.

affective empathy is one's empathic concern for and feel about the feedback. Try to
others (Davis, 1980). Empathic concern is feel the full impact of what the
other‐oriented and involves feelings of warmth, other person is going through.”
concern, and compassion for a person in distress … [state, cognitive/affective, experimental]
[trait, sympathy]” (p. 558)
Manipulation check: 4‐items
[state, cognitive/affective/
sympathy, self‐report]
Ployhart and Not provided 6 items that asked how empathetic Sample: National securities brokerage
Hakel (1998) the individual believed others perceived firm employees
the person to be [trait, unknown, self‐report] Design: Multisource longitudinal archival
dataset/survey
Riggio and “… Davis' (1983) multidimensional conception of Davis (1980) perspective‐taking subscale Sample: Nurses in hospice organization
Taylor (2000) empathy, indicates that there are at least three of IRI [trait, cognitive, self‐report] Design: Multisource cross‐sectional survey
distinct types of empathy: Perspective‐Taking—
the ability to cognitive identify with another and Davis (1980) empathic concern subscale
see his or her perspective [trait, cognitive]; of IRI [trait, sympathy/other, self‐report]
Empathic Concern—an understanding of and
concern for the feelings of others [trait, sympathy]; Davis (1980) personal distress subscale
and Personal Distress—empathy associated with of IRI [trait, other, self‐report]
vicariously experiencing another's emotional
state [trait, affective/other]” (p. 353)
Scott Empathy reflects the capacity to place oneself in Batson (1987) empathic concern Sample: Information‐technology employees
et al. (2010) the “emotional shoes” of another person subscale [trait, sympathy/other, self‐report] at large medical facility in the U.S.
[trait, cognitive] … Empathic individuals are not Design: Within‐subjects repeated measures
only adept at gauging the emotions of others, Batson (1987) personal distress (experience sampling)
but they also tend to share in those emotions, subscale [trait, other, self‐report]
experiencing them vicariously [trait, affective].
Thus, empathy involves both a cognitive
(i.e., understanding or comprehending another's
state) [state, cognitive] and an affective
(i.e., sharing another's state) component
[state, affective]” (p. 127)

“The literature on empathy has distinguished between

two types of vicarious responses that individuals
may experience towards others: empathy concern
and personal distress … Empathic concern encompasses
traditional notions of empathy and consists of positive
response towards others such as concern, warmth,
and compassion [state, sympathy], whereas
personal distress is a negative orientation consisting
of responses towards others such as alarm,
worry, and being upset [state, other].” (p. 131)

(Continues)
175

10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 TABLE 1 (Continued)
176

Authors Definition Measure of empathy Sample, design, and analyses

Settoon and “Perspective taking is the cognitive act of adopting Davis (1994) perspective‐taking Sample: Employees at state university and
Mossholder (2002) the perspective of another...” subscale [trait, cognitive, self‐report] state regional medical center
(p. 257) [state, cognitive] Design: Multisource cross‐sectional survey
Davis (1994) empathic concern
“Empathic concern represents the emotional subscale [trait, sympathy/other, self‐report]
experience of compassion and feeling for another
in need …” (p. 258) [state, sympathy]
Silvester “[Empathy] is most often conceptualized in one of 3 items rated by patients [state, Sample: Physicians in the UK
et al. (2007) two ways: (a) as a heightened sensitivity to another's cognitive (judged), other‐report] Design: Multisource cross‐sectional
emotional state that results in a shared emotional survey/Multisource observational
response and feelings of sympathy 1 item rated by assessor [trait,
[state, other/affective/sympathy], or (b) as the cognitive/affective/behavioral
ability to decode a target person's thoughts and (judged), other‐report]
feelings and respond accordingly
[trait, cognitive.] …” (p. 519)

“[Judged empathy is] an observer's judgment of

another person's empathy based on their
demonstrated behavior …”
[state, behavioral (judged)] (p. 519)

“...empathy was defined as “a capacity and motivation

to take in patient/colleague perspective, and
sense associated feelings—the ability to generate
a safe/understanding atmosphere”
(p. 521) [trait, cognitive/affective/behavioral]
Taylor and None provided 3 items rated by recruiter Sample: Job applicants and recruiters
Bergmann (1987) [state, cognitive, self‐report] Design: Multisource multiwave
10 items rated by applicants cross‐sectional survey
[state, other (judged), other‐report]
Taylor “The term ‘empathy’ has been used in the literature Davis (1980) empathic concern Sample: Entry‐level counselors at
et al. (2010) to refer to the identification with or vicarious subscale [trait, sympathy/other, large nonprofit in the U.S.
experience of others' thoughts and feelings” self‐report] Design: Multisource cross‐sectional survey
(p. 817) [state, affective/cognitive]

“...empathy describes the tendency to respond

emotionally to the perceived welfare of others”
(p. 817) [trait, sympathy]
Waung and None provided One item assessing self‐reported Sample: Undergraduate students
Highhouse (1997) experienced empathy [state, Design: Experimental design
unclear, self‐report]

Davis (1983) empathic concern

subscale [trait, sympathy/other,
self‐report]

(Continues)
CLARK
ET AL.

10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLARK ET AL. 177

(e.g., Wondra & Ellsworth, 2015) and neurological (e.g., Decety, 2011)

Note. Terms in brackets represent our coding of whether the construct definition and measure utilized reflects (a) trait or state influences and (b) cognitive, affective, behavioral, or judged dimension(s) of empathy.
underpinnings and different correlates (e.g., Longmire & Harrison,
2018). However, this consensus does not exist in organizational
research, given that sympathy/compassion and empathy are often
erroneously conflated. Other constructs conflated with empathy
Design: Multisource observational

include emotional reactivity (e.g., McNeely & Meglino, 1994) and per-
Sample, design, and analyses

sonal distress (e.g., Fox & Spector, 2000).

Sample: MBA students

4. The jangle fallacy is prevalent in empathy research

We also found that the jangle fallacy—when authors erroneously

assume that two identical or almost identical things are different
because they are labeled differently (Kelley, 1927)—is prevalent in orga-
nizational research on empathy. This occurs when authors define empa-
thy narrowly as one of the dimensions of empathy (or as sympathy), and
interviews] and empathy [trait, cognitive/

then define another dimension of empathy as a different construct. For

from Boyatzis (1995): perspective taking
for managerial competencies adapted

example, Lindsey, King, Hebl, and Levine (2015) defined empathy as

[trait, cognitive, coding of archival

“the capacity to understand others' emotions and experiences” (p.

Critical incident interviews coded

609) and then included a separate definition (and measurement) of per-

spective taking. Similarly, Longmire and Harrison (2018) conducted a
behavioral/other, coding
of archival interviews]

meta‐analysis to differentiate perspective taking from empathy (opera-

Measure of empathy

tionalized as empathic concern). We believe this is problematic because,

as discussed above, perspective taking is one process by which cogni-
tive empathy may occur; indeed, cognitive empathy is often experimen-
tally induced through perspective‐taking manipulations (Batson, Chang,
et al., 2002; Drwecki, Moore, Ward, & Prkachin, 2011). The jangle fal-
lacy contributes to confusion in the empathy literature and undermines
progress on understanding empathy as a multidimensional construct.
taking is defined as analyzing, discerning, and considering
“… the cognitive skill of perspective taking … Perspective

understand the situation from his or her perspective.”

labeled empathy … Empathy is defined as actively

6.2 | Recommendations for conceptualizations of

perspectives, particularly when they are different
from the observer's own beliefs, emotions, and
seeking to identify with another's emotions so

the merits of another's point of view … in a sense

“The intent [of perspective taking] is to perceive

that one experiences oneself to be similar to
“...a critical component of emotional intelligence

empathy in organizational behavior

(Sally, 2000).” (p. 510) [trait/state, affective]

stepping into another's shoes to analyze and

or nearly identical with the other person

“The intent [of empathy] is to understand

another person's beliefs, emotions, and

1. Use definitions that recognize empathy as a trait and a state

perspectives” (p. 513) [trait, cognitive]
others” (p. 513) [trait, cognitive]

Going forward, we believe that empathy researchers should always

(p. 509) [trait/state, cognitive]

define empathy as a construct with both trait and state components.

We hope that acknowledging both trait and state aspects of empathy
in construct definitions will drive operationalizations of empathy that
also recognize both trait and state aspects. Consequently, using a mul-
tilevel conceptualization may also lead to more sophisticated research
Definition

designs that adequately capture both state and trait empathy (e.g.,
multilevel designs such as experience sampling methodology, or
experimental manipulations of state empathy with trait empathy as a
moderator). Although we think it is preferable to operationalize empa-
thy and use research designs in ways that capture the breadth of the
construct, we recognize that this is not always possible. However,
even when researchers use exclusively trait or state research measures,
we encourage the use of definitions that reflect both trait and state
components. This is because both researchers and readers should be
(Continued)

aware of the limits of inference when using measures that are

construct‐deficient. In other words, researchers should make clear that
et al. (2002)

their findings only apply to trait (state) empathy when using a trait
(state) measure, and that it is possible that their findings would be
Authors
TABLE 1

Wolff

different if they assessed empathy as a state (trait). Moreover,

researchers should ensure that their theoretical arguments align with
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
178 CLARK ET AL.

interested in studying empathy and emotional intelligence should con-

their choice to focus on empathy as a trait (or state); it is inappropriate
sider potential conceptual and empirical overlap between cognitive
to use state‐level theory to support predictions about empathy as a
empathy and the emotion perception dimension of EI. Researchers
trait, and vice versa.
should also consider how these constructs may play a substantive role
in the empathy process. For example, EI may moderate the effects of
2. Use definitions that recognize empathy as multidimensional exposure to empathy‐relevant situations on state empathy. Regardless
of the constructs involved, researchers should be aware of potential
We advocate that researchers always define empathy as a multi- redundancies, and be careful not to contribute to the jangle fallacy
dimensional construct with cognitive, affective, and behavioral com- by discussing different dimensions of empathy as different constructs.
ponents. As above, although we encourage researchers to measure
multiple dimensions of empathy, we advocate the use of multidimen-
sional definitions even when researchers measure only one dimension. 6.3 | Critical issues with the measurement of
Given differential effects of different dimensions on outcomes (e.g.,
empathy
Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008), we think it is critically impor-
tant that inferences from research on a single dimension are not We identified three key issues surrounding the measurement of empa-
extrapolated to reflect empathy as a whole. For example, state affec- thy in organizational research:
tive empathy for others' negative affective states may engender a
“narrowing effect” during information processing, where potentially 1. Measures of empathy are often contaminated
useful and relevant information is excluded because of one's negative
emotional state (Kӧnig et al., 2018). In contrast, state cognitive empa- One of the most prevalent and concerning issues in organizational
thy appears to foster information elaboration and creativity (Grant & research on empathy is the use of contaminated measures. Our review
Berry, 2011; Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel, & Barkema, of the measures used in Table 1 indicates that nearly all measures of
2012). In isolation, these studies appear to have conflicting results empathy in organizational research are contaminated in some way.
about the role of empathy in information processing. However, a mul- Many studies used measures that assessed one or more dimensions
tidimensional approach allows for the possibility of differential effects of empathy in addition to other constructs that we do not consider
for different dimensions. Taking a multidimensional approach also to be empathy, such as sympathy or emotional reactivity. For example,
allows researchers to advance theory by considering how the different two studies used Mehrabian and Epstein's (1972) Questionnaire Mea-
dimensions may interact with each other to predict outcomes (e.g., sure of Emotional Empathy (QMEE). Though this measure includes
Ang & Goh, 2010). We believe it is critically important that researchers some items reflecting affective empathy, the majority of the items
not only recognize the multidimensionality of empathy but that they are construct‐irrelevant (e.g., “I become very involved when watching
clearly and correctly identify the dimension(s) they are studying. This a movie”), and some items reflect behavioral empathy. Similarly, two
practice would help to reduce the confusion about what empathy is, studies used the empathy subscale of the International Personality
reduce the jangle fallacy, better align organizational research with Item Pool (IPIP; http://ipip.ori.org/); this measure not only includes
the broader empathy literature, and advance theory on empathy. items assessing cognitive and affective empathy but also includes
construct‐irrelevant items (e.g., “cry easily”). There were also a few
3. Carefully consider how empathy relates to other constructs studies that combined items measuring a dimension of empathy with
items measuring a different construct; for example, Joireman, Kamdar,
Finally, researchers should carefully consider how empathy relates Daniels, and Duell (2006) combined the IRI subscales of perspective
to other constructs of interest when developing their ideas. In some taking and empathic concern. Finally, several studies claimed to mea-
cases, it may be that the researcher who thought he or she was inter- sure empathy but used a measure that did not reflect any of the three
ested in empathy is actually interested in sympathy/compassion; in dimensions of empathy; in most cases, these studies measured sympa-
many cases, sympathy/compassion may be a better theoretical fit than thy using the IRI empathic concern subscale or Batson's (1987) mea-
empathy (e.g., when employees are exposed to others who are suffer- sure of empathic concern. Even the perspective‐taking subscale of
ing). Researchers may also consider the possibility that empathy and the IRI (the most frequently used measure of cognitive empathy) con-
sympathy/compassion may have differential effects on outcomes and tains irrelevant items that seem more reflective of a general open‐
measure both constructs in their research (e.g., Longmire & Harrison, minded attitude when it comes to disagreements (e.g., “I believe that
2018). Regardless, we greatly encourage research on sympathy/ there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both”)
compassion (with or without the inclusion of empathy), as long as than understanding others' internal states. In sum, the majority of
clear and accurate definitions are used to differentiate sympathy/ studies used contaminated or inappropriate measures of empathy.
compassion from empathy. In fact, we suggest that researchers consider These measures limit the extent to which researchers can detect dif-
a moratorium on the term “empathic concern,” and instead use ferential effects of the different dimensions of empathy and further
sympathy/compassion to better differentiate this construct from confusion between empathy and distinct constructs. Moreover, the
empathy. widespread use of contaminated measures limits the extent to which
Researchers should also consider how other constructs they are findings in organizational research can be interpreted as reflecting
interested in may relate to empathy. For example, researchers empathy.
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLARK ET AL. 179

2. Measures of empathy are often deficient indirect, we mean that these studies did not directly assess the con-
vergence between a target and observer. As discussed above, one of
Our review also demonstrates that measures of empathy used in the hallmarks of empathy is convergence: affective empathy is
organizational research are often deficient in a number of ways. defined as the convergence of a target's affective state with an
Even when measures of empathy are uncontaminated by items mea- observer's affective state; cognitive empathy as the convergence of
suring other constructs, these measures tend to focus on a single an observer's perceptions of a target's internal state and a target's
dimension of empathy: cognitive, often measured using the IRI perceptions of his or her own internal state; and the behavioral
perspective‐taking subscale. Although some items on this subscale mirroring component of behavioral empathy as the convergence of
capture part of trait cognitive empathy—someone's tendency to an observer's behavior and a target's behavior. Thus, we believe that
understand others' thoughts or points of view—we believe this mea- measures that directly assess convergence are the most construct‐
sure also has some deficiencies. As discussed above, the current valid representation of these dimensions of empathy. However,
view on perspective taking is that it is one of several cognitive pro- although several authors appeared to share our conceptualization
cesses by which people can experience cognitive empathy (Cuff of empathy as at least partially involving convergence (e.g., DeCelles
et al., 2016). Some of the items of this subscale reflect this view— et al., 2018; Ho & Gupta, 2012; Kellett et al., 2002; Kellett, Hum-
for example, “I sometimes try to understand my friends better by phrey, & Sleeth, 2006; Riggio & Taylor, 2000; Scott et al., 2010;
imagining how things look from their perspective.” However, no Silvester et al., 2007; Wolff et al., 2002), these authors did not use
items focus on other cognitive processes involved with experiencing convergence‐based measures.
cognitive empathy, such as understanding others' affective states or
interpreting facial expressions. For these issues regarding deficiency
as well as the previously identified issues with contamination, we 6.4 | Recommendations for measuring empathy in
believe the perspective‐taking subscale is an inadequate measure organizational behavior
of cognitive empathy.
Mirroring the deficiencies in the conceptualization of empathy, 1. Use convergence‐based methods to assess empathy
we also found that measures of empathy do not capture the breadth
of empathy in terms of its multiple dimensions or its conceptualization Similar to other congruence‐based constructs (e.g., Kristof, 1996), we
as a state and a trait. Indeed, only one measure in our review captured believe that empathy is most accurately assessed using convergence‐
all three dimensions of empathy (Silvester et al., 2007). However, this based methods (i.e., analyzing the extent to which the target's affective
measure was a single item that blended all three dimensions together; state, thoughts, and behavior, respectively, converge with the
as a result, this study was unable to examine differential effects of the observer's emotions [affective], perceptions of the target's affective
dimensions of empathy. Although a few studies assessed both state state and/or thoughts [cognitive], and verbal/physical behaviors
and trait empathy (i.e., Patient & Skarlicki, 2010; Silvester et al., [behavioral]). We suggest that, wherever possible and relevant, state
2007; Waung & Highhouse, 1997), these distinctions were made on empathy should be assessed by examining convergence between an
the basis of item wording rather than by research design; as a result, observer and target. Convergence‐based measures can be used to
these studies provide weak evidence of the distinction between trait assess all three dimensions of empathy. For example, affective empathy
and state empathy. has been operationalized as skin conductance concordance (Marci,
Ham, Moran, & Orr, 2007), cognitive empathy as the extent to which
3. Measures of empathy are often misaligned with construct an observer's ratings of a targets thoughts and feelings match the tar-
definitions get's ratings of his or her own thoughts and feelings (e.g., Côté et al.,
2011), and behavioral empathy as the extent to which an observer mir-
Our review indicates that many studies conceptualized empathy rors a target's behavior (e.g., Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). In the organiza-
in a manner that did not align with how empathy was measured. Some tional research we reviewed, behavioral empathy has been
studies conceptualized empathy as a state (e.g., Settoon & operationalized using linguistic analysis of language style matching
Mossholder, 2002) or as both a state and a trait (e.g., Scott et al., between leaders and followers in performance appraisal interviews
2010; Taylor, Kluemper, & Mossholder, 2010) but only used a trait (Meinecke & Kauffeld, 2018).
measure. There was also frequent misalignment of conceptualizations Importantly, trait empathy theoretically reflects congruence (of
and measurement of empathy dimensions. In some cases, authors con- affect, behavior, or cognition) across repeated encounters with a vari-
ceptualized empathy in terms of one dimension but then measured ety of targets in different settings. Thus, a single assessment of
another dimension (or a different construct altogether; e.g., Scott affective, behavioral, or cognitive convergence provides inadequate
et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2010). In several other cases, authors used information about an observer's general tendency to be empathic.
a multidimensional conceptualization of empathy but did not capture Although it would be ideal to use repeated convergence‐based
one or more of these purported dimensions in their measure (e.g., assessments across targets and situations to determine the propor-
Bagozzi et al., 2013; DeCelles, DeVoe, Rafaeli, & Agasi, 2018; Ho & tion of variance in empathy that is stable over time (i.e., trait empa-
Gupta, 2012; Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2002). thy), we realize that this procedure may not be practical in many
With one exception (Meinecke & Kauffeld, 2018), all studies settings. Thus, trait empathy may be most feasibly assessed using
included in our review measured empathy in an indirect way. By self‐report measures. However, we urge researchers to consider
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
180 CLARK ET AL.

available measures of trait empathy that repeatedly exposure partic- 3. Consider integrating novel approaches to measuring empathy
ipants to stimuli whenever possible (e.g., Pickett, Gardner, &
Knowles, 2004). In addition to self‐report measures, empathy has been measured
in the broader literature using physiological (e.g., EMG) and neurolog-
2. Develop new measures and/or revise existing measures ical (e.g., fMRI) methods. When used appropriately, these methods can
overcome biases associated with self‐report or observational mea-
Because convergence‐based measures are not always feasible sures, provide continuous information about empathy over the course
(e.g., for trait empathy) or appropriate (e.g., for judged empathy or of an interaction, shed light on the mechanisms underlying the
empathic communication), our review indicates that new measures empathic process, and provide convergent validity for self‐report and
of empathy are needed for organizational research on empathy to observational measures of empathy. For example, Sonnby‐Borgström
move forward. These new measures should capture the breadth of et al. (2003) used EMG to assess facial mimicry reactions after expo-
cognitive, affective, and behavioral empathy and reflect a multidi- sure to pictures of angry or happy faces (an aspect of behavioral
mensional conceptualization of empathy. Fortunately, existing mea- empathy). Research has also used physiological convergence to mea-
sures of empathy can be revised to better reflect the construct of sure affective empathy; for example, Marci et al. (2007) used skin con-
empathy. For example, several items on contaminated measures ductance concordance as a measure of affective empathy and found
(e.g., QMEE, the IPIP) appear to reflect empathy. Researchers can that concordance was positively related to judged empathy. fMRI
conduct validation and psychometric evaluations of these various has been used to examine affective empathy by comparing the extent
empathy measures to reduce these scales to only those items that to which areas of the brain that are activated during firsthand experi-
appropriately reflect empathy. Deficient measures can also be sup- ence are also activated when witnessing another person undergo that
plemented by additional items to better capture the breadth of each experience (e.g., Singer et al., 2004). We see great promise in integrat-
dimension of empathy. In addition, a number of measures in the ing these novel methods with new and/or revised self‐report mea-
broader empathy literature exist that better reflect a multidimen- sures to better understand empathy in organizational research.
sional conceptualization of empathy than measures currently used Though research is still needed to develop valid observer ratings
in organizational research. For example, the Questionnaire of Cogni- of behavioral empathy, in the future, we see potential for machine
tive and Affective Empathy (Reniers, Corcoran, Drake, Shryane, & learning approaches to assessing behavioral empathy. Machine learn-
Vӧllm, 2011) and the Basic Empathy Scale (Jolliffe & Farrington, ing techniques may be used to create measures that automatically
2006) both include cognitive and affective dimensions (though nei- assess behavioral empathy in workplace email and intranet contexts,
ther measure is perfect). Regardless of the specific measure used, videos, and audio transcripts, without requiring a human rater (see
we encourage researchers to carefully examine item content, George, Osinga, Lavie, & Scott, 2016; National Research Council,
psychometric properties, and construct validity when measuring 2015; Oswald & Putka, 2017; Tonidandel, King, & Cortina, 2018).
empathy. Though the “training” of any new measure requires the researcher
Given that behavioral empathy is a newer dimension of empa- to connect self‐report or other‐ratings of an individual on a psycho-
thy, inductive research is needed to identify the specific behaviors logical construct (e.g., behavioral empathy) with an individual's activ-
reflective of this construct. Although the behavioral mirroring aspect ity on a digital platform (e.g., email and social media activity), once
of behavioral empathy can be assessed using convergence‐based the measure has been trained, future ratings are not impacted by
measures (e.g., Meinecke & Kauffeld, 2018), empathic communica- the human biases of those involved in the interaction with the tar-
tion does not involve congruence. Therefore, new measures are get. Therefore, machine learning approaches have the potential to
needed that capture the range of behaviors involved in empathic overcome biases associated with observational ratings and also can
communication. In developing these measures, we believe it is criti- reduce the time‐ and labor‐intensive task of behavioral coding.
cally important for researchers to recognize the subtle distinction Machine learning approaches may also be useful for validating new
between indicators of empathic communication and predictors of measures of empathy. For example, the same methods used to vali-
judged empathy. For example, Silvester et al. (2007) behaviorally date new measures of personality using social media activity could
coded patient–physician interactions for communication behaviors, be used to validate new measures of empathy. Research has shown
and then used these behaviors to predict patient and assessor rat- that machine learning approaches can demonstrate stronger predic-
ings of physician empathy. Although some behaviors predicted tive validity than traditional self‐ and other‐report measures (Kern
judged empathy (e.g., discussion of personal topics, missed patient et al., 2016; Kosinski, Wang, Lakkaraju, & Leskovec, 2016).
cues, and using positive statements), that does not necessarily mean
that these behaviors indicate behavioral empathy. Nonempathy
behaviors may affect judged empathy in other ways, for example,
by contributing to a positive halo or general liking. Empathic 6.5 | Critical issues with the design of empathy
communication is only indicated if behaviors demonstrate the research
observer's affective empathy (i.e., sharing the same affective state)
and/or cognitive empathy (i.e., understanding the target's thoughts In evaluating empathy research in organizational behavior, we identi-
and/or feelings). Identifying these behaviors is a critical task for fied a single critical issue surrounding the design of empathy research:
the advancement of empathy research. the preponderance of cross‐sectional survey designs.
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLARK ET AL. 181

1. Cross‐sectional survey designs are overused in empathy research experiments. For example, several studies have manipulated cognitive
empathy through role‐taking manipulations (e.g., Batson, Chang, et al.,
Mirroring the broader organizational research base, empathy 2002; Drwecki et al., 2011; Jackson, Brunet, Meltzoff, & Decety,
research is dominated by cross‐sectional survey designs. Although 2006); indeed, similar manipulations have been used in organizational
such designs can be reasonable in some circumstances, inferences research on perspective taking (e.g., Grant & Berry, 2011; Ramarajan,
drawn from this type of design cannot provide answers to fundamen- Rothbard, & Wilk, 2017). Affective empathy is often manipulated by
tal questions about empathy in organizations. Specifically, cross‐ exposing participants to affective stimuli, such as exposure to various
sectional survey designs preclude inferences about causality and emotional expressions (e.g., Bagozzi et al., 2013; Hennig‐Thurau,
change. Moreover, results from cross‐sectional surveys may be biased Groth, Paul, & Gremler, 2006; Kramer, Guillory, & Hancock, 2014;
in a number of ways (e.g., Maxwell & Cole, 2007; Podsakoff, MacKen- Lishner, Hong, Jiang, Vitacco, & Neumann, 2015). Behavioral empathy
zie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). has been manipulated by instructing observers to mimic a target's
Several studies reviewed used multisource designs, in which pre- behavior (Stel & Vonk, 2010), or to use particular empathic behaviors
dictor and criterion variables were reported by two different sources. (e.g., paraphrasing, verbal expressions of understanding; Seehausen,
Although this design may overcome some limitations of single‐source Kazzer, Bajbouj, & Prehn, 2012; Seehausen et al., 2016).
surveys (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2003), it ultimately still suffers from the In addition to experimental inductions in lab settings, a number of
same limitations regarding inferences about causality and change empathy interventions have been implemented in field settings. For
faced by single‐source cross‐sectional designs. Likewise, studies using example, Riess et al. (2012) implemented an empathy intervention
time‐separated measurements of predictor and criterion may over- for resident physicians that focused on increasing awareness of empa-
come bias due to temporal factors, yet are still fundamentally cross‐ thy and improving skills associated with cognitive empathy (i.e., emo-
sectional (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010). Thus, although some empa- tion recognition) and behavioral empathy (i.e., verbal and behavioral
thy research has attempted to overcome common method bias responses). Lindsey et al. (2015) manipulated perspective taking by
through the use of multisource or time‐separated designs, these asking college students to write a narrative about a day in the life of
designs are not sufficient to address the limitations associated with a member of a marginalized group. Organizational researchers should
cross‐sectional designs. consider adapting such existing interventions and/or developing new
Cross‐sectional designs also provide weak evidence of how interventions that align with a multidimensional conceptualization of
empathy may operate as both a trait and a state. In contrast, studies empathy for implementation in field settings.
that manipulate the state of empathy and studies that examine
repeated measurements of state empathy over time are well suited 2. Use observational designs
to address the distinction between trait and state empathy. Only
two studies included in our review manipulated empathy using an Observational research on empathy is necessary for developing
experimental design. Specifically, Bagozzi et al. (2013) manipulated valid and comprehensive measures of behavioral empathy. From a
affective empathy by exposing participants to video clips of people practical perspective, we need to know what empathy looks like in dif-
displaying various emotional states, and Patient and Skarlicki (2010) ferent organizational contexts in order to develop useful empathy‐
manipulated both cognitive and affective empathy by instructing related training and development initiatives. Moreover, we need to
participants to take another person's perspective and to “feel the full know which specific empathic behaviors are associated with ratings
impact of what the other person is going through” (p. 566). One study of judged empathy across different contexts and raters. Thus, it is crit-
(Daniels, Glover, & Mellor, 2014) used a daily diary design to assess ical for future empathy research to precisely identify the scope of
judged empathy; however, this study did not report the proportion behaviors included in behavioral empathy to determine the extent to
of variance in judged empathy at the within‐ and between‐person which these behaviors can be reliably assessed by observers and to
levels. determine the extent to which empathic behaviors are generalizable
across occupational contexts. A useful methodological framework for
observational research can be found in Yoder, Lloyd, and Symons
6.6 | Recommendations for designing empathy (2018).
research in organizational behavior
3. Use longitudinal designs
1. Use experimental designs
Longitudinal research is necessary for theoretical and practice
Experimental designs provide the strongest foundation for making advancements in empathy research. From a practical perspective, lon-
causal inferences. Given that many of the fundamental questions gitudinal research helps to provide specific, actionable advice on
about empathy center around the causal effect of empathy on impor- when, and for how long, the effects of empathy will last. Indeed,
tant outcomes (e.g., performance and positive interpersonal relation- there is some evidence that employees habituate to others' emotions
ships), experimental research is necessary to move organizational over time with repeated exposure (Cheng, Chen, & Decety, 2017).
research on empathy forward. Fortunately, there is an extensive body From a theoretical perspective, the precision of our theories is
of experimental work on empathy in the broader literature that enhanced by considering temporal issues (Ployhart & Ward, 2011).
organizational researchers can draw from when designing new Relevant temporal issues in empathy research include whether trait
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
182 CLARK ET AL.

and state empathy changes over time and whether different people Empathy and job performance
have different change trajectories. This research requires repeated The association between empathy and job performance (task
assessment of empathy, ideally using more than three time points and contextual) has been examined in several studies. In line with
(Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010). the broader literature on empathy and helping (Batson, Ahmad,
Lishner, & Tsang, 2002), organizational research has examined
4. Use multilevel designs whether empathy is associated with organizational citizenship
behaviors (OCBs), particularly OCBs directed towards individuals,
Given that empathy is a multilevel construct with trait and state with several studies finding positive associations (e.g., Ho & Gupta,
components, we advocate for the use of research designs that can 2012; Joireman et al., 2006; Kamdar, McAllister, & Turban, 2006;
address empathy as both a trait and a state. For example, experimental McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Parker & Axtell, 2001; Settoon &
research is well suited to examine how the effects of state empathy on Mossholder, 2002). Organizational research has also investigated
outcomes may be moderated by trait empathy (e.g., Zaki et al., 2008). whether trait and state empathy contribute to helping behaviors in
Experience sampling studies would also be useful for answering ques- a variety of situations, including after witnessing customers' uncivil
tions about the effects of situational factors on state empathy and treatment of employees (Hershcovis & Bhatnagar, 2017), in response
how these effects may be moderated by trait empathy. Indeed, com- to customers' situational stressors (DeCelles et al., 2018), and follow-
bining experimental designs with experience sampling methodology ing diversity training (Lindsey et al., 2015). This literature also
would address many of the methodological concerns with the current suggests that trait empathy may mitigate the negative effects of
empathy research base. hindrances to helping (e.g., Joireman et al., 2006; Kamdar et al.,
We also see great potential for multilevel research on empathy at 2006) and amplify the positive effects of predictors of helping
higher levels of analysis, such as within teams and organizations. The (e.g., Lindsey et al., 2015; Taylor et al., 2010).
need to examine empathy at higher levels of analysis is reflected in Unfortunately, the conclusion that empathic individuals are more
recent theoretical and practical interest in corporate or collective likely to engage in helping behavior/OCBs is premature due to the
empathy (Muller et al., 2014; Parmar, 2015), and experimental work conceptual, measurement, and design issues identified earlier. The
suggesting that cognitive empathy can be induced within teams confusion between empathy and sympathy is particularly apparent in
(Hoever et al., 2012). In pursuing research on empathy at higher levels, the OCB literature; some studies operationalize empathy as sympathy
it is critically important for researchers to examine the theoretical (e.g., Hershcovis & Bhatnagar, 2017; McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Tay-
meaning and structure of empathy at each level of analysis rather than lor et al., 2010), some use contaminated measures of empathy that
to assume isomorphism with individual‐level empathy (Klein & include items reflecting both empathy and sympathy (e.g., Joireman
Kozlowski, 2000; Tay, Woo, & Vermunt, 2014). et al., 2006; Lindsey et al., 2015; Parker & Axtell, 2001), and others
conceptualize sympathy as an outcome of cognitive empathy (e.g.,
Ho & Gupta, 2012; Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). Based on the
6.7 | Fundamental questions for organizational empathy‐OCB studies to date, it is unclear whether trait empathy,
research on empathy sympathy, or both empathy and sympathy are positively related to
OCBs. Moreover, in the rare cases where measures of empathy are
Given the aforementioned issues surrounding the conceptualization used that are not contaminated by sympathy, these studies focus
and measurement of empathy in organizational behavior, what do exclusively on trait perspective taking (i.e., Ho & Gupta, 2012; Kamdar
we actually know about the role of empathy in organizational behav- et al., 2006; Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). Thus, it is unknown
ior? To answer this, we decided to focus on two fundamental ques- whether the broader dimension of cognitive empathy (beyond the
tions that are central to advancing research on empathy in perspective‐taking process) relates to OCBs, whether other dimen-
organizations: (a) Is empathy associated with important outcomes of sions of trait empathy are related to OCBs, or whether state empathy
interest to organizations and employees? and (b) Can empathy be predicts OCBs.
changed, and if so, how? We have organized the remainder of our crit- Relatively fewer studies have examined how empathy may relate
ical review around these two questions. to other dimensions of job performance, including task performance
and counterproductive work behavior. A few studies in our review
6.7.1 | Is empathy associated with important out- examined the association between empathy and task performance,
comes of interest to organizations and employees? with the results of these studies showing mixed associations. Ployhart
and Hakel (1998) found that trait empathy was positively related to
In order for empathy research to be useful to organizations and both sales performance and increases in sales performance over time;
employees, researchers must establish that empathy is related to however, because the items on this measure were not provided, we
important outcomes of interest. This is a fundamental question were unable to evaluate the extent to which this measure reflected
because, unless research shows that empathy is related to important empathy. There is some evidence that people higher in trait cognitive
outcomes, there is little basis for integrating empathy into selection empathy may be perceived as better performers by others; for exam-
batteries or investing in training initiatives to increase empathy. Our ple, Fox and Spector (2000) found job candidates' trait perspective
review indicates that empathy has most often been examined as a pre- taking predicting raters' decisions to hire the candidate and perceived
dictor of job performance and positive interpersonal outcomes. candidate qualifications in a simulated job interview. In contrast,
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLARK ET AL. 183

McNeely and Meglino (1994) found an unexpected negative relation- supporting/developing others, and group task coordination. However,
ship between trait empathy and other‐reported role‐prescribed interrater agreement was not reported in this study, and common
behavior, such as arriving at work on time and using work time wisely; method bias is a concern, as a single rater and single interview was
however, this study used a measure of sympathy to measure “empa- used to measure empathy and the mediators. Notably, empathy was
thy.” In a sample of hospice nurses, Riggio and Taylor (2000) found not directly related to peer selection as an informal leader. In contrast,
no significant association between trait perspective‐taking and hos- Meinecke and Kauffeld (2018) found high interrater agreement using a
pice nurse performance (assessed through independent ratings of behaviorally anchored rating scale of empathic communication (judged
employees' personnel files). Emerging evidence suggests that supervi- leader empathy, as assessed by trained raters). These ratings of judged
sors' empathy may play an important role in facilitating employees' leader empathic communication were positively related to employees'
performance; specifically, Meinecke and Kauffeld (2018) found that perceptions of supervisors' likeability.
supervisors' behavioral empathy (assessed by language style matching) Taken together, these findings suggest that when a single source
indirectly predicted employees' intentions to change in response to an provides measures of both empathy and leadership behaviors on the
appraisal interview through assessors' perceptions of empathic com- basis of a brief interaction, empathy and leadership tend to be posi-
munication. Although these findings are encouraging, it is premature tively correlated. Although earlier studies using different sources to
to draw conclusions on the relationship between empathy and task capture empathy and leadership found weak or nonsignificant associ-
performance on the basis of these few studies and the use of deficient ations (e.g., Kellett et al., 2006; Wolff et al., 2002), a recent study
measures (Fox & Spector, 2000; Riggio & Taylor, 2000), measures (Meinecke & Kauffeld, 2018) found a positive association between
misaligned with construct definitions (McNeely & Meglino, 1994), or judged leader empathy (as assessed by trained assessors) and
unclear measures of empathy (Ployhart & Hakel, 1998). employees' perceptions of leaders' likeability. These discrepancies
There is also limited and inconsistent evidence on how empathy may result from more rigorous measurement, the impact of training,
relates to counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). In one of two or substantive differences in perspectives between interaction part-
studies, Ho and Gupta (2012) found no evidence of a direct or indirect ners and independent observers.
effect of trait perspective taking on CWBs. In their second study, the
authors found a negative indirect effect of trait perspective taking on Empathy and interpersonal outcomes
CWBs through empathic concern (conceptualized by the authors as Apart from its association with performance, empathy may play an
another form of empathy) that was contingent on employees' percep- important role in fostering positive interactions with coworkers, subordi-
tions of interpersonal justice. Detert, Treviño, and Sweitzer (2008) nates, and customers. Some support for the proposition that empathy is
found that trait empathy (measured using the contaminated IPIP associated with more positive communication behaviors exists in organi-
empathy scale) was negatively associated with unethical decision‐ zational research. For example, Patient and Skarlicki (2010) found that
making (a form of CWB) and that this association was mediated by students who were experimentally induced to experience state cognitive
moral disengagement. Unfortunately, due to the few studies address- and affective empathy used more fair communication (as assessed by
ing this question and the use of deficient (Ho & Gupta, 2012) and con- observational ratings) when communicating negative feedback to a con-
taminated (Detert et al., 2008) measures of empathy, it is difficult to federate. There is also evidence that positive communication behaviors
make sense of these findings. contribute to judgments of empathy. For example, Silvester et al.
Another relevant question is whether empathy contributes to (2007) found that physicians who engaged in more discussion of per-
leadership performance. A few studies in our review examined how sonal topics with patients and missed fewer patient cues in an assess-
empathy relates to leader perceptions (i.e., Kellett et al., 2002; Kellett ment center exercise were subsequently more likely to be judged as
et al., 2006; Meinecke & Kauffeld, 2018; Wolff et al., 2002). Kellett empathic by patients and assessors. Similarly, Meinecke and Kauffeld
et al. (2002) found that students who were judged as more empathic (2018) found that supervisors' behavioral empathy (as assessed through
by their peers were more likely to be viewed as leaders by their peers. language style matching) was positively associated with assessors' judg-
Similarly, in a separate study, Kellett et al. (2006) found that peer‐ ments of supervisor empathy. These findings suggest possible reciprocal
rated “interactive empathy” (measured using a blend of affective, associations between empathy and positive communication behaviors.
behavioral, and nonempathy items) was positively related to peer rat- Other research highlights the possibility that observer and judged
ings of task and relations leadership; however, when different peers empathy may have differential effects on interpersonal outcomes.
were used as sources of empathy and leadership ratings, the associa- Specifically, Park and Raile (2010) found that coworker‐rated (judged)
tion between empathy and task leadership was nonsignificant. Inter- trait perspective taking was positively associated with coworker‐rated
estingly, these studies found low levels of interrater agreement for communication satisfaction, even when using different coworker
empathy, suggesting that that different interaction partners may have sources to rate each variable to account for common method bias. How-
quite different views of an observer's empathy when such judgments ever, self‐reported trait perspective taking was not significantly associ-
are based on brief interactions (see also Silvester et al., 2007). ated with coworker‐rated communication satisfaction, and self‐
Wolff et al. (2002) used critical incident interviews to assess reported and coworker‐reported perspective taking were not signifi-
empathy (operationalized broadly as “understanding others”) among cantly associated with each other. Interestingly, when self‐rated per-
MBA students and found that empathy was indirectly related to lead- spective taking exceeded coworker‐rated perspective taking,
ership emergence (i.e., peer selection as an informal leader) through communication satisfaction was lower. These results provide evidence
critical incident ratings of pattern recognition, perspective taking, that self‐report measures of perceived empathy may be biased and
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
184 CLARK ET AL.

bring up the interesting possibility that discrepancies between and novelty) may interact with the different dimensions of empathy
observers and interaction partners in empathy judgments may be an to predict outcomes. For example, a grief counselor who is high in trait
important predictor of interpersonal outcomes. It is possible that such affective empathy may experience poor job performance at the begin-
discrepancies between observer and judged empathy may be reduced ning of his or her career; however, as the counselor is exposed to addi-
when observer empathy is assessed using convergence‐based methods tional grieving clients over time and as his or her clients begin to
that, in our view, better reflect the construct of empathy than self‐ recover from their losses, the negative effects of trait affective empa-
reported perceived empathy. thy on job performance may diminish. Recent theoretical work by
A few studies examined how the experience of being empathized Kӧnig et al. (2018) also suggests that empathy may have curvilinear
with affects interpersonal outcomes and employee well‐being. Using associations with outcomes; future research should consider this pos-
an experience sampling study, Daniels et al. (2014) found that sibility, particularly when investigating interactive effects (Edwards,
employees who felt that others understood their feelings and point 2009). These suggestions mirror calls for greater attention to context
of view (i.e., judged cognitive empathy) reported higher levels of rela- in the emotional intelligence literature (Jordan, Dasborough, Daus, &
tionship quality with coworkers, higher levels of positive affect, and Ashkanasy, 2010). As in the EI literature, the literature on empathy is
lower levels of negative affect later that day. In contrast, Scott et al. strengthened by identifying situations in which lack of empathy is
(2010) concluded that managers' trait empathy was not directly associated with better outcomes, in which different dimensions of
related to employees' average levels of positive and negative affect. empathy are differentially associated with outcomes, and in which
However, manager trait empathy moderated the daily association associations between empathy and outcomes may be curvilinear (Jor-
between employees' goal progress and employees' positive affect, dan et al., 2010).
such that the positive association was stronger when managers were In addition to considering the role of the situation, we encourage
higher in trait empathy. Unfortunately, this study used a measure of researchers interested in the association between empathy and out-
sympathy to assess empathy, limiting the extent to which findings comes to carefully consider the intended practical implications of their
can be compared across these two studies. research when deciding to study empathy as a trait or a state. If
researchers are interested in identifying additional traits that predict

6.7.2 | Recommendations to enhance our under- important outcomes (e.g., job performance) in order to guide selection
standing of empathy's association with outcomes of decisions, trait empathy measures should be included alongside other
interest to organizations and employees robust predictors of these outcomes, such as personality (Barrick &
Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991), core self‐evaluations
Ultimately, the methodological and conceptual problems discussed (Judge & Bono, 2001), and general mental ability (Schmidt & Hunter,
earlier pose a substantial threat to the validity of our findings and 2004). It remains to be seen whether empathy can improve prediction
undermine the conclusions we are able to make about how empathy of outcomes in specific occupational contexts above and beyond
relates to important outcomes of interest to organizations. these existing widely used measures. Alternatively, some research sug-
Implementing the recommendations outlined earlier, including using gests that empathy may interact with other traits such as personality
construct‐valid measures of the multiple dimensions of empathy and when predicting outcomes such as performance (e.g., Taylor et al.,
using stronger research designs, is necessary to overcome these chal- 2010). However, if trait empathy does not incrementally add to pre-
lenges. In addition to these more general methodological recommen- diction of outcomes, we do not see adequate justification for continu-
dations, we also have several unique recommendations for ing this line of research. If, on the other hand, researchers are
advancing research on how empathy relates to important outcomes. interested in empathy as a mechanism for improving employee out-
In terms of the association between empathy and outcomes, we comes in particular situations, interventions manipulating state empa-
believe that researchers need to consider the situation to a much thy are relevant and necessary. Certainly, there are other practical and
greater extent than is reflected in the current literature. As outlined theoretical aims of studying empathy beyond changing selection prac-
in trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003), the association tices or designing interventions. Our point is that researchers should
between traits and job performance depends on the extent to which be mindful of what they aim for empathy research to achieve and that
situations activate the trait. Extending this model to empathy, we these aims should guide methodological choices.
might expect trait empathy to be relevant to important outcomes to We also see an opportunity for organizational researchers to
the extent that employees are exposed to empathy‐relevant situations contribute meaningfully to theory on empathy by elucidating the
(Davis, 1996). Specifically, we might expect trait empathy to be more mechanisms through which state and/or trait empathy relate to out-
strongly associated with outcomes when jobs, contexts, and tasks comes. Although the broader empathy literature distinguishes the
involve exposure to targets experiencing changes in their emotional different dimensions and levels of empathy and between observer
expressions or personal situations (Wondra & Ellsworth, 2015). For and judged empathy, there is little guidance on how and why empa-
example, empathy may be particularly important for performance in thy may relate to outcomes of interest to organizations. Signaling
challenging contexts (e.g., providing negative feedback during a per- theory (Spence, 1973) may provide a useful theoretical framework
formance appraisal) or in jobs involving encountering others in emo- for understanding how behavioral and/or judged empathy may pre-
tionally charged situations (e.g., police officer, social workers, and dict outcomes of interest. For example, displaying empathic commu-
healthcare practitioners). We also encourage researchers to consider nication may be a key signal to interaction partners that observers
how different features of empathy‐relevant situations (e.g., valence are focused on their partners' well‐being rather than on themselves,
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLARK ET AL. 185

which may facilitate improved interpersonal outcomes. Signaling the- in the empathic condition were rated by observers as displaying
ory may also be useful for explaining the observed lack of agreement more interpersonal and informational justice in their interactions
in empathy ratings between observers and interaction partners (e.g., with the confederate than participants in a no‐instruction control
Park & Raile, 2010) and among different interaction partners (e.g., condition. However, because both cognitive and affective empathy
Silvester et al., 2007). In addressing mediating mechanisms between were targeted by the manipulation, it is unclear whether this finding
empathy and outcomes, we encourage researchers to use appropri- was driven by state cognitive, state affective, a combination of state
ate research designs (i.e., experimental and/or longitudinal designs). cognitive and state affective empathy, or mediated through behav-
In our view, cross‐sectional mediation models involving trait empa- ioral empathy.
thy measured alongside other traits (e.g., sympathy) provide inade- A few studies in our review used manipulations of what we
quate evidence of the mechanisms through which empathy relates would consider empathy but did not describe these as manipulations
to outcomes of interest. of empathy in the articles. Lindsey et al. (2015) randomly assigned
freshman students to one of three diversity training methods: per-
6.7.3 | Can empathy be changed, and if so, how? spective taking, goal setting, or stereotype discrediting. As noted
above, perspective taking is one prevalent method of inducing cogni-
The second fundamental question centers on the question of whether tive empathy. In the perspective‐taking condition, students were
empathy can be modified or changed, and if so, how. This is an impor- asked to write a short narrative about the experience of a member
tant question because if empathy is found to positively (or negatively) of marginalized group. Those in the perspective‐taking condition
impact important organizational outcomes, interventions can be imple- had less prejudiced attitudes towards lesbians and gays and
mented to modify empathic tendencies or empathic states. displayed more LGB‐supportive behavior 8 months later than those
To answer the question of whether empathy can be changed, in the stereotype‐discrediting condition. These effects were medi-
experimental studies are needed. Unfortunately, only two studies ated by improvements in motivation to respond without prejudice.
included in our review purported to manipulate empathy using an However, the perspective‐taking condition did not reduce prejudice
experimental design. Bagozzi et al. (2013) manipulated affective or supportive behavior towards African Americans. These results
empathy by displaying video clips of faces displaying positive and suggest that inducing cognitive empathy can be effective for reduc-
negative facial expressions; this manipulation resulted in activation ing prejudice and discrimination, although the effects may vary
of neural structures (assessed via fMRI) that were not activated in depending on the target. Moreover, Lindsey et al. (2015) found that
a control condition that displayed moving geometric shapes. trait empathy moderated the effects of condition on prejudice and
Although activation in some regions (i.e., the left and right insula) supportive behavior towards LGB individuals and African Americans,
occurred to a greater extent in the experimental condition than the such that a positive association only occurred when trait empathy
control condition, Bagozzi et al. (2013) also found that additional was lower. Unfortunately, these conclusions are limited by the use
brain regions were activated when videos of negative emotions of a contaminated measure of trait empathy (i.e., the IPIP empathy
displayed that were not activated when videos of positive emotions scale), and the lack of inclusion of a manipulation check to ensure
were displayed. These findings suggest that the neural pathways that the perspective‐taking condition indeed increased perspective
underlying affective empathy for positive versus negative emotions taking.
may differ. Additionally, although this manipulation resulted in Bagozzi et al. (2013) also used an experimental design to manip-
unique patterns of neural activation, it is unclear the extent to which ulate theory of mind—defined as “the ability to read the desires,
displaying video clips resulted in changes to participants' affective intentions, and beliefs of other people” (Frith & Frith, 2008, p. 504,
states; in other words, activation of neural structures in response as cited in Bagozzi et al., 2013). We and others consider the concept
to emotional stimuli does not necessarily indicate that subjects are to be synonymous with cognitive empathy (Shamay‐Tsoory et al.,
subjectively experiencing congruent affective states. These struc- 2009; Smith, 2006), as it involves understanding others' internal
tures are implicated in a variety of processes in addition to empathy states. To manipulate theory of mind, Bagozzi et al. (2013) presented
(e.g., interoception; Menon & Uddin, 2010); as a result, we do not participants with stories involving professional interactions between
believe subjective affective experience can currently be inferred an employee and a customer and asked participants to answer ques-
from fMRI activation patterns alone. For this reason, we believe it tions about why the employee engaged in particular behavior as
is critically important to triangulate findings from fMRI or physiolog- described in the story. Those in this condition exhibited greater acti-
ical assessments with convergence‐based subjective measures of vation of brain regions associated with cognitive empathy (i.e.,
affective states whenever possible. In addition, we believe that temporo‐parietal junction, medial prefrontal cortex, and prenucleus)
research designs that directly assess convergence in neural or phys- than those in the control condition (in which participants answered
iological activation patterns (e.g., Marci et al., 2007; Singer et al., factual questions about the story).
2004) provide much stronger evidence of state empathy than stud-
ies that assess the responses of a single source. 6.7.4 | Recommendations to enhance our under-
Patient and Skarlicki (2010) experimentally manipulated both standing of whether empathy can be changed
cognitive and affective empathy by instructing participants to take
a confederate's perspective and to “feel the full impact of what Although the studies described above show initial evidence that
the other person is going through” (p. 566). Interestingly, participants empathy can be effectively changed using experimental manipulation
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
186 CLARK ET AL.

in organizational research, improvements in research design are empathy may be less beneficial than inducing other affective states,
needed to move research in this area forward. First, it is critical that or may even be harmful. For example, neuroscience research has also
researchers follow and report basic features of experimental design, shown that feeling pain with others (affective empathy) activates the
including the use of construct‐valid manipulations and manipulation same regions involved in the experience of firsthand pain. However,
checks, blinding, and inclusion of appropriate control groups. We are a compassionate reaction does not replicate the painful state itself
concerned that several of these key features were missing from the but rather produces feelings of concern and warmth as well as a moti-
articles we reviewed. Second, longitudinal experimental research is vation to help the sufferer (de Vignemont & Singer, 2006; Klimecki,
needed to provide guidance on how long the effects of empathy train- Ricard, & Singer, 2013; Singer & Lamm, 2009). This research suggests
ing may last and what the appropriate “dose” of empathy is. Lindsey that, in some circumstances, it may be more beneficial to instruct indi-
et al. (2015) found initial evidence that the effects of empathy training viduals to attain compassionate affective states rather than to encour-
can be lasting, particularly for those who are lower in trait empathy. age affective empathy. Moreover, inducing one dimension of empathy
However, research from outside organizational behavior suggests that may have negative effects on positive outcomes if other dimensions of
empathy may decline over time as employees are repeatedly exposed empathy are not also induced. For example, behavioral empathy in the
to empathy‐relevant situations (e.g., Cheng et al., 2017). absence of cognitive empathy may be experienced as disingenuous by
Aside from improvements in methodological rigor, we encourage interaction partners and may contribute to negative outcomes. Thus,
researchers to use a multidimensional approach to better understand researchers and practitioners should not assume that empathy is uni-
how the dimensions of empathy can be changed and the outcomes of versally beneficial; additional research is needed to determine the
these changes. Experimental (e.g., Zaki et al., 2008) and theoretical potential costs and benefits of inducing different dimensions of empa-
(e.g., Davis, 1996) work on empathy suggests that exposure to an thy before organizations implement such initiatives.
empathy‐relevant situation is a proximal predictor of state empathy.
Specifically, theory suggests that empathy‐relevant situations involve
7 | CO NC LUSIO N
changes in a target's emotional expression (e.g., target starts to cry) or
personal situation (e.g., hearing that the target has been fired; Wondra
To our fellow empathy scholars, we feel your pain. Empathy has been
& Ellsworth, 2015). This work implies that changing employees' expo-
defined and measured in a multitude of ways, making it difficult for
sure to empathy‐relevant situations may be one way for organizations
scholars to reach consensus about what empathy is and is not. This
to activate employees' empathic responses. For example, jobs can be
lack of consensus has severely limited our ability to accumulate knowl-
designed in such a way as to increase contact with beneficiaries (Grant,
edge around how and why this construct is associated with organiza-
2007), thereby increasing the likelihood of exposure to empathy‐
tional behavior. However, our review of the broader empathy research
relevant situations (e.g., emotional expression), which in turn may facil-
base suggests emerging consensus that empathy is a multidimensional
itate empathy (Daniels et al., 2014; Kellett et al., 2006). Research is
construct with state and trait components. Our critical review of
needed to determine how exposure to various empathy‐relevant situa-
empathy research in organizational behavior demonstrates that it is
tions may differentially affect the three dimensions of empathy.
essential for organizational researchers to use greater precision when
A multilevel approach is also needed to understand the conditions
conceptualizing and measuring empathy. These advancements are
under which empathy can be changed. Consistent with trait activation
needed for our field to better align with the broader empathy litera-
theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003), prior research has found that the extent
ture and to advance the science of empathy.
to which empathy‐relevant situations are associated with empathic
Though our review highlights that our field has substantial room
reactions to those situations depends on the observer's level of trait
for improvement in terms of how empathy is conceptualized, mea-
empathy. For example, research has found that exposing participants
sured, and studied, we also believe organizational research is well
to photos of happy and angry faces produces congruent facial expres-
positioned to contribute to the broader empathy literature by devel-
sions in subjects with high trait affective empathy but not low trait
oping more valid measurements of empathy and deploying novel and
affective empathy (Dimberg & Thunberg, 2012; see also Sonnby–
rigorous methods (e.g., experimental, observational, and longitudinal
Borgström, 2002; Westbury & Neumann, 2008). These findings under-
designs; convergence‐based approaches). By overcoming the critical
score the need for a multilevel approach when examining how and
issues in empathy research identified in our review using the stated
under what conditions empathy can be changed and are consistent
recommendations, we believe our field will be able to meaningfully
with recent theory outlining how trait empathy may interact with state
evaluate the extent to which empathy is associated with important
empathy when predicting outcomes (Cropanzano et al., 2017). In addi-
outcomes of interest to organizations and employees. Ultimately, we
tion, experimental studies are needed to test the extent to which the
hope that organizational research will be able to provide practical rec-
effects of observer empathy on outcomes are mediated by judged
ommendations on whether and how empathy can be fostered in orga-
empathy, to elucidate the boundary conditions that can account for
nizational settings.
discrepancies between observer and judged empathy, and to under-
stand the role of trait empathy in these associations.
Although we greatly encourage additional well‐designed experi- ORCID

mental research on empathy in organizations, we also encourage Malissa A. Clark https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9899-1452

researchers to evaluate the costs and benefits of engineering Melissa M. Robertson https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9476-4738
employees' emotional states. Under certain conditions, inducing Stephen Young https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0408-5868
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLARK ET AL. 187

RE FE R ENC E S Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Wethington, E. (1989). The con-
tagion of stress across multiple roles. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51,
Ang, R. P., & Goh, D. H. (2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role
175–183. https://doi.org/10.2307/352378
of affective and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry &
Human Development, 41, 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578‐ Boyatzis, R. E. (1995). Cornerstones of change, building the path for self‐
010‐0176‐3 directed learning. In R. E. Boyatzis, S. S. Cowen, & D. A. Kolb (Eds.),
Innovation in professional education (pp. 50–91). San Francisco, CA:
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Duas, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional
Jossey‐Bass.
intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.320 Carr, L., Iacoboni, M., Dubeau, M. C., Mazziotta, J. C., & Lenzi, G. L. (2003).
Neural mechanisms of empathy in humans: A relay from neural systems
Axtell, C. M., Parker, S. K., Holman, D., & Totterdell, P. (2007). Enhancing
for imitation to limbic areas. PNAS, 100, 5497–5502. https://doi.org/
customer service: Perspective taking in a call center. European Journal
10.1073/pnas.0935845100
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 141–168. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13594320600989583 Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The
perception‐behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality
Bagozzi, R. P., Verbeke, W. J., Dietvorst, R. C., Belschak, F. D., van den Berg, and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐
W. E., & Rietdijk, W. J. (2013). Theory of mind and empathic explanations 3514.76.6.893
of Machiavellianism: A neuroscience perspective. Journal of Management,
39, 1760–1798. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312471393 Chartrand, T. L., & Larkin, J. L. (2012). The antecedents and consequences of
human behavioral mimicry. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 285–308.
Banissy, M. J., Kanai, R., Walsh, V., & Rees, G. (2012). Inter‐individual differ-
Cheng, Y., Chen, C., & Decety, J. (2017). How situational context impacts
ences in empathy are reflected in human brain structure. NeuroImage,
empathic responses and brain activation patterns. Frontiers in Behavioral
62, 2034–2039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.05.081
Neuroscience, 11, 165. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00165
Barkham, M., & Shapiro, D. A. (1986). Counselor verbal response modes
Christ, C. C., Carlo, G., & Stoltenberg, S. F. (2016). Oxytocin receptor
and experienced empathy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 3–10.
(OXTR) single nucleotide polymorphisms indirectly predict prosocial
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0167.33.1.3
behavior through perspective taking and empathic concern. Journal of
Bar‐On, R. (1997). The Bar‐On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ‐i): Technical Personality, 84, 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12152
manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi‐Health Systems, Inc.
Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality:
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions Meta‐analytic integration of observers' accuracy and predictive validity.
and job performance: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. Psychology Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021212
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744‐6570.1991.tb00688.x Côté, S., Kraus, M. W., Cheng, B. H., Oveis, C., van der Lӧwe, I., Lian, H., &
Barsade, S. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on Keltner, D. (2011). Social power facilitates the effect of prosocial orien-
group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–675. https://doi. tation on empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social
org/10.2307/3094912 Psychology, 101, 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023171
Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In L. Cropanzano, R., Dasborough, M. T., & Weiss, H. M. (2017). Affective
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20) events and the development of leader‐member exchange. Academy
(pp. 65–122). New York, NY: Academic Press. of Management Review, 42, 233–258. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amr.2014.0384
Batson, C. D. (2009). These things called empathy: Eight related by distinct
phenomena. In J. Decety, & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of Cuff, B. M. P., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2016). Empathy: A
empathy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/ review of the concept. Emotion Review, 8, 144–153. https://doi.org/
mitpress/9780262012973.003.0002 10.1177/1754073914558466

Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., Lishner, D. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). Empathy and Daniels, K., Glover, J., & Mellor, N. (2014). An experience sampling study of
altruism. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psy- expressing affect, daily affective well‐being, relationship quality, and
chology (pp. 485–498). New York: Oxford University Press. perceived performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 87, 781–805. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12074
Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes,
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences
and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate
in empathy. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
one to help the group? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,
1656–1666. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237647 Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence
for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster,
chology, 44, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.44.1.113
M. R., & Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic
alternatives to the empathy‐altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder, CO:
and Social Psychology, 55, 52–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐ Westview Press.
3514.55.1.52 Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder, CO:
Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Westview Press.
Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motiva- Davis, M. H. (2009). Empathy. In H. T. Reis, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclope-
tional consequences. Journal of Personality, 55, 19–39. https://doi. dia of human relationships (pp. 516–520). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00426.x Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412958479.n167
Beasley, K. (2016, July). Ford using ‘empathy belly’ to make safer cars for de Vignemont, F., & Singer, T. (2006). The empathic brain: How, when and
pregnant women. Retrieved from http://www.fox5atlanta.com/ why? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 435–441. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.008
Bernhardt, B. C., & Singer, T. (2012). The neural basis of empathy. Annual
Review of Neuroscience, 2012, 35, 1–23. de Waal, F. B. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution
of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279–300. https://doi.
Besel, L. D. S., & Yuille, J. C. (2010). Individual differences in empathy: The
org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625
role of facial expression recognition. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 49, 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.013 DeCelles, K. A., DeVoe, S. E., Rafaeli, A., & Agasi, S. (2018). Helping to
reduce fights before flights: How environmental stressors in organiza-
Biddle, S. (2012, August). How to be a genius: This is Apple's secret employee
tions shape customer emotions and customer–employee interactions.
training manual. Retrieved from https://gizmodo.com/5938323/
Personnel Psychology, 1–32. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.
Bloom, P. (2016). Against empathy. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers. org/10.1111/peps.12292
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
188 CLARK ET AL.

Decety, J. (2011). Dissecting the neural mechanisms mediating empathy. Emo- Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2000). Relations of emotional intelligence, practical
tion Review, 3, 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910374662 intelligence, general intelligence, and trait affectivity with interview
Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). Friends or foes: Is empathy necessary for outcomes: It's not all just ‘G’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,
moral behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 525–537. 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099‐1379(200003)21:2<203::
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614545130 AID‐JOB38>3.0.CO;2‐Z
Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective‐taking and self–
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human
other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordina-
empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3, 71–100.
tion. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 109–124. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582304267187
org/10.1177/1368430205051060
Decety, J., & Yoder, K. J. (2016). Empathy and motivation for justice:
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to
Cognitive empathy and concern, but not emotional empathy, predict
get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspec-
sensitivity to injustice for others. Social Neuroscience, 11, 1–14.
tive taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19,
https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2015.1029593
378–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9280.2008.02096.x
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement
Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation
in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Jour-
theory of mind reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 493–501.
nal of Applied Psychology, 93, 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364‐6613(98)01262‐5
9010.93.2.374
George, G., Osinga, E. C., Lavie, D., & Scott, B. A. (2016). Big data and data
Dillard, J. P., & Hunter, J. E. (1989). On the use and interpretation of the
science methods for management research. Academy of Management
emotional empathy scale, the self consciousness scales, and the self‐
Journal, 59, 1493–1507. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4005
monitoring scale. Communication Research, 16, 104–129. https://doi.
org/10.1177%2F009365089016001005 Gonzalez‐Liencres, C., Shamay‐Tsoory, S. G., & Brüne, M. (2013). Towards
a neuroscience of empathy: Ontogeny, phylogeny, brain mechanisms,
Dimberg, U. (1990). Facial electromyography and emotional reactions. Psy-
context and psychopathology. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,
chophysiology, 27, 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469‐8986.
37, 1537–1548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.05.001
1990.tb01962.x
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a
Dimberg, U., & Thunberg, M. (2012). Empathy, emotional contagion, and
prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393–417.
rapid facial reactions to angry and happy facial expressions. PsyCh
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351328
Journal, 1, 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.4
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of
Dimberg, U., Thunberg, M., & Elmehed, K. (2000). Unconscious facial reac-
invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and
tions to emotional facial responses. Psychological Science, 11, 86–89.
creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 73–96. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9280.00221
org/10.5465/amj.2011.59215085
Dowell, N. M., & Berman, J. S. (2013). Therapist nonverbal behavior and Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1992). Primitive emotional
perceptions of empathy, alliance, and treatment credibility. Journal of contagion. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychol-
Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/ ogy ( ed., Vol. 14) (pp. 151–177). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
a0031421
Hatfield, E., Rapson, R. L., & Le, Y. L. (2009). Emotional contagion and
Drollinger, T., Comer, L. B., & Warrington, P. T. (2006). Development empathy. In J. Decety, & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of
and validation of the active empathetic listening scale. Psychology and empathy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/
Marketing, 23, 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20105 mitpress/9780262012973.003.0003
Drwecki, B. B., Moore, C. F., Ward, S. E., & Prkachin, K. M. (2011). Reduc- Hennig‐Thurau, T., Groth, M., Paul, M., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Are all
ing racial disparities in pain treatment: The role of empathy and smiles created equal? How emotional contagion and emotional labor
perspective‐taking. Pain, 152, 1001–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. affect service relationships. Journal of Marketing, 70, 58–73. https://
pain.2010.12.005 doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.3.58
Duan, C., & Hill, C. E. (1996). The current state of empathy research. Jour- Hershcovis, M. S., & Bhatnagar, N. (2017). When fellow customers behave badly:
nal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Witness reactions to employee mistreatment by customers. Journal of
0022‐0167.43.3.261 Applied Psychology, 102, 1528–1544. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000249
Ebert, R. (2010, May 19). Cannes #7: A campaign for real movies. Roger Ho, V. T., & Gupta, N. (2012). Testing an empathy model of guest‐directed cit-
Ebert's Journal. Retrieved from https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers‐ izenship and counterproductive behaviours in the hospitality industry:
journal/cannes‐7‐a‐campaign‐for‐real‐movies Findings from three hotels. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-
Edwards, J. R. (2009). Seven deadly myths of testing moderation in organi- chology, 85, 433–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044‐8325.2011.02046.x
zational research. In C. E. Lance, & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G.
and methodological myths and urban legends: Received doctrine, verity, (2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to
and fable in the organizational and social sciences. New York, NY: unlocking diversity's potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,
Routledge. 982–996. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029159
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial Hurlemann, R., Patin, A., Onur, O. A., Cohen, M. X., Baumgartner, T.,
and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91–119. https://doi. Metzler, S., … Kendrick, K. M. (2010). Oxytocin enhances amygdala‐
org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91 dependent, socially reinforced learning and emotional empathy in
Fan, Y., Duncan, N. W., de Greck, M, & Northoff, G. (2011). Is there a core humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 4999–5007. https://doi.org/
neural network in empathy? An fMRI based quantitative meta‐analysis. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5538‐09.2010
Neuroscience. Biobehavioral. Review, 35, 903–911. https://doi.org/ Ickes, W. (2003). Everyday mind reading. New York, NY: Prometheus Books.
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.10.009.
Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V., & Garcia, S. (1990). Naturalistic social
Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). The forgiving organization: A multilevel cognitive: Empathic accuracy in mixed‐sex dyads. Journal of Personality
model of forgiveness at work. The Academy of Management Review, and Social Psychology, 59, 730–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐
37, 664–688. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0497 3514.59.4.730
Firth‐Cozens, J. (1992). The role of early family experiences in the percep- Jackson, P., Brunet, E., Meltzoff, A., & Decety, J. (2006). Empathy examined
tion of organizational stress: Fusing clinical and organizational through the neural mechanisms involved in imagining how I feel versus
perspectives. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, how you feel pain. Neuropsychologia, 44, 752–761. https://doi.org/
65, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044‐8325.1992.tb00484.x 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.07.015
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLARK ET AL. 189

Jackson, P., Meltzoff, A., & Decety, J. (2005). How do we perceive the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8788–8790.
pain of others? A window into the neural processes involved in https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320040111
empathy. NeuroImage, 24, 771–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person‐organization fit: An integrative review of its
neuroimage.2004.09.006
conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychol-
Joireman, J., Kamdar, D., Daniels, D., & Duell, B. (2006). Good citizens to ogy, 49, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744‐6570.1996.tb01790.x
the end? It depends: Empathy and concern with future consequences
Ku, G., Wang, C. S., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). The promise and perversity of
moderate the impact of a short‐term horizon on organizational citizen-
perspective taking in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior,
ship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1307–1320. https://
35, 79–102. Neuroimage, 54, 2492–2502
doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.91.6.1307
Lance, C. E., Hoffman, B. J., Gentry, W. A., & Baranik, L. E. (2008). Rater
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of
source factors represent important subcomponents of the criterion
the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 589–611.
construct space, not rater bias. Human Resource Management Review,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010
18, 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.03.002
Jordan, P. J., Dasborough, M. T., Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2010).
A call to context. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 145–148. Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K., & Lauver, K. J. (2010). The problem of
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01215.x empirical redundancy of constructs in organizational research: An empiri-
cal investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Joseph, D. L., Jin, J., Newman, D. A., & O'Boyle, E. H. (2015). Why does 112, 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.003
self‐reported emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta‐
analytic investigation of mixed EI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, Lindsey, A., King, E., Hebl, M., & Levine, N. (2015). The impact of method,
298–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037681 motivation, and empathy on diversity training effectiveness. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 30, 605–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integra-
s10869‐014‐9384‐3
tive meta‐analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
95, 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017286 Lishner, D. A., Hong, P. Y., Jiang, L., Vitacco, M. J., & Neumann, C. S. (2015).
Psychopathy, narcissism, and borderline personality: A critical test of
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self‐evaluations
the affective empathy‐impairment hypothesis. Personality and Individual
traits—Self‐esteem, generalized self‐efficacy, locus of control, and
Differences, 86, 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.036
emotional stability—With job satisfaction and job performance: A
meta‐analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92. https://doi. Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept.
org/10.1037/0021‐9010.86.1.80 Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425–431. https://doi.org/
10.1002/job.318
Kamdar, D., McAllister, D. J., & Turban, D. B. (2006). “All in a day's work”:
How follower individual differences and justice perceptions predict Loder, V. (2016, February 4). What successful companies are doing right:
OCB role definitions and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, Empathy. Forbes Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/
841–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.91.4.841 vanessaloder/2016/02/04/what‐successful‐companies‐are‐doing‐right‐
Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2002). Empathy and complex empathy/#3f8273538ffc
task performance: Two routes to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, Longmire, N. H., & Harrison, D. A. (2018). Seeing their side versus feeling
13, 523–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048‐9843(02)00142‐X their pain: Differential consequences of perspective‐taking and empa-
Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2006). Empathy and the thy at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 894–915. https://doi.
emergence of task and relations leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, org/10.1037/apl0000307
146–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.003 Lord, S. P., Sheng, E., Imel, Z. E., Baer, J., & Atkins, D. C. (2015). More than
Kelley, E. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. Yonkers, reflections: Empathy in motivational interviewing includes language
NY: World Book Company. style synchrony between therapist and client. Behavior Therapy, 46,
296–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2014.11.002
Kerig, P. K., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Couple observational coding systems.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/ Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. (2010). Leader empathy, ethical leader-
9781410610843 ship, and relations‐oriented behaviors as antecedents of leader‐
member exchange quality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25,
Kern, M. L., Park, G., Eischstaedt, J. C., Schwartz, H. A., Sap, M., Smith, L. K.,
561–577. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011056932
& Ungar, L. H. (2016). Gaining insights from social media language:
Methodologies and challenges. Psychological Methods, 21, 507–525. Manson, J. H., Bryant, G. A., Gervais, M. M., & Kline, M. A. (2013).
https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000091 Convergence of speech rate in conversation predicts cooperation.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 34, 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.) (2000). Multilevel theory, research,
evolhumbehav.2013.08.001
and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new direc-
tions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Marci, C. D., Ham, J., Moran, E., & Orr, S. P. (2007). Physiologic correlates
Klimecki, O., Ricard, M., & Singer, T. (2013). Empathy versus compassion: of perceived therapist empathy and social‐emotional process during
Lessons from 1st and 3rd person methods. In T. Singer, & M. Bolz psychotherapy. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195,
(Eds.), Compassion: Bridging practice and science (pp. 272–287). 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.0000253731.71025.fc
Retrieved from http://www.compassion‐practice.org Maurer, R. E., & Tindall, J. H. (1983). Effect of postural congruence on client's
Klimecki, O. M., Leiberg, S., Ricard, M., & Singer, T. (2013). Differential pat- perception of counselor empathy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30,
tern of functional brain plasticity after compassion and empathy 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0167.30.2.158
training. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9, 873–879. Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross‐sectional analyses of lon-
Kӧnig, A., Graf‐Vlachy, L., Bundy, J., & Little, L. M. (2018). A blessing and a gitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12, 23–44. https://doi.org/
curse: How CEOs' trait empathy affects their management of organiza- 10.1037/1082‐989X.12.1.23
tional crises. Academy of Management Review. Advance Online Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emo-
Publication. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0387 tional intelligence: The case for ability scales. In R. Bar‐On, & J. D. A.
Kosinski, M., Wang, Y., Lakkaraju, H., & Leskovec, J. (2016). Mining big data Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence. San Francisco:
to extract patterns and predict real‐life outcomes. Psychological Jossey‐Bass.
Methods, 21, 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000105 Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. S.
Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evi- D. Sluyter (Ed.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence:
dence of massive‐ scale emotional contagion through social networks. Implications for educators (pp. 3–34). New York, NY: Basic Books.
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
190 CLARK ET AL.

McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095–1107. https://doi.org/
situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An exami- 10.1177/0146167203262085
nation of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal
Ployhart, R. E., & Hakel, M. D. (1998). The substantive nature of performance
of Applied Psychology, 79, 836–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐
variability: Predicting interindividual differences in intraindividual perfor-
9010.79.6.836
mance. Personnel Psychology, 51, 859–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. j.1744‐6570.1998.tb00744.x
Journal of Personality, 40, 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐
Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The the-
6494.1972.tb00078.x
ory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36, 94–120.
Meinecke, A. L., & Kauffeld, S. (2018). Engaging the hearts and minds of https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352110
followers: Leader empathy and language style matching during
Ployhart, R. E., & Ward, A. K. (2011). The “quick start guide” for conducting
appraisal interviews. Journal of Business and Psychology. Advance
and publishing longitudinal research. Journal of Business and Psychology,
Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869‐018‐9554‐9
26, 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869‐011‐9209‐6
Menon, V., & Uddin, L. Q. (2010). Saliency, switching, attention and con-
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
trol: a network model of insula function. Brain Structure and Function,
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of
214, 655–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429‐010‐0262‐0
the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychol-
Molinsky, A. L., Grant, A. M., & Margolis, J. D. (2012). The bedside manner ogy, 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.88.5.879
of homo economicus: How and why priming an economic schema
reduces compassion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and prox-
imate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–72.
Processes, 119, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.05.001
Morand, D. A. (2001). The emotional intelligence of managers: Assessing Ramarajan, L., Rothbard, N. P., & Wilk, S. L. (2017). Discordant vs. harmonious
the construct validity of a nonverbal measure of “people skills”. Journal selves: The effects of identity conflict and enhancement on sales perfor-
of Business and Psychology, 16, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1023/ mance in employee–customer interactions. Academy of Management
A:1007831603825 Journal, 60, 2208–2238. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.1142

Muller, A. R., Pfarrer, M. D., & Little, L. M. (2014). A theory of collective Rameson, L. T., Morelli, S. A., & Lieberman, M. D. (2011). The neural corre-
empathy in corporate philanthropy decisions. Academy of Management lates of empathy: Experience, automaticity, and prosocial behavior.
Review, 39, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0031 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 235–245.

National Research Council (2015). Measuring human capabilities: An agenda Reniers, R. L. E. P., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Vӧllm, B. A.
for basic research on the assessment of individual and group performance (2011). The QCAE: A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy.
potential for military accession. Washington, DC: National Academies Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Press. 00223891.2010.528484

Nezlek, J. B., Feist, G. J., Wilson, F. C., & Plesko, R. M. (2001). Day‐to‐day Riess, H., Kelley, J. M., Bailey, R. W., Dunn, E. J., & Phillips, M. (2012).
variability in empathy as a function of daily events and mood. Journal Empathy training for resident physicians: A randomized controlled trial
of Research in Personality, 35, 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1006/ of a neuroscience‐informed curriculum. Journal of General Internal Med-
jrpe.2001.2332 icine, 27, 1280–1286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606‐012‐2063‐z
Nicolai, J., Demmel, R., & Hagen, J. (2007). Rating scales for the assessment Riggio, R. E., & Taylor, S. J. (2000). Personality and communication skills
of empathic communication in medical interviews (REM): Scale devel- as predictors of hospice nurse performance. Journal of Business and
opment, reliability, and validity. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Psychology, 15, 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007832320795
Medical Settings, 14, 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880‐007‐ Roca, M., Torralva, T., Gleichgerrcht, E., Woolgar, A., Thompson, R., Duncan, J.,
9081‐8 & Manes, F. (2011). The role of Area 10 (BA10) in human multitasking and
Oishi, K., Faria, A. V., Hsu, J., Tippett, D., Mori, S., & Hillis, A. E. (2015). in social cognition: A legion study. Neuropsychologia, 49, 3525–3531.
Critical role of the right uncinated fasciculus in emotional empathy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.09.003
Annals of Neurology, 77, 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.24300 Sagi, A., & Hoffman, M. L. (1976). Empathetic distress in newborns.
Oswald, F. L., & Putka, D. J. (2017). Big data methods in the social sciences. Developmental Psychology, 12, 175–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 18, 103–106. https://doi.org/ 0012‐1649.12.2.175
10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.10.006
Sally, D. (2000). A general theory of sympathy, mind‐reading, and
Park, H. S., & Raile, A. N. (2010). Perspective taking and communication social interaction, with an application to the Prisoners' Dilemma.
satisfaction in coworker dyads. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, Social Science Information, 39, 567–634. https://doi.org/10.1177%
569–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869‐009‐9149‐6 2F053901800039004003
Parker, S. K., & Axtell, C. M. (2001). Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cog-
and outcomes of employee perspective taking. Academy of Management nition and personality, 9, 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2190%2FDUGG‐
Journal, 44, 1085–1100. P24E‐52WK‐6CDG
Parmar, B. (2015, January 8). Corporate empathy is not an oxymoron. Harvard Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in a world of
Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/01/corporate‐ work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Person-
empathy‐is‐not‐an‐oxymoron ality and Social Psychology, 86, 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). Increasing interpersonal and infor- 0022‐3514.86.1.162
mational justice when communicating negative news: The role of the Schneiderman, I., Kanat‐Maymon, Y., Ebstein, R. P., & Feldman, R. (2014).
manager's empathic concern and moral development. Journal of Man- Cumulative risk on the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) underpins
agement, 36, 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308328509 empathic communication difficulties at the first stage of romantic love.
Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry Scan, 9, 1524–1529.
and word count—LIWC2001. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Paddock, E. L., & Judge, T. A. (2010). A daily
Penner, L. A., Fritzsche, B. A., Craiger, J. P., & Freifeld, T. R. (1995). Measur- investigation of the role of manager empathy on employee well‐
ing the prosocial personality. Advances in Personality Assessment, 10, being. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113,
147–163. 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.08.001
Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The Seehausen, M., Kazzer, P., Bajbouj, M., Heekeren, H. R., Jacobs, A. M.,
need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality Klann‐Delius, G., … Prehn, K. (2016). Effects of empathic social
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLARK ET AL. 191

responses on the emotions of the recipient. Brain and Cognition, 103, construct measures. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 77–106.
50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2015.11.004 https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113517008
Seehausen, M., Kazzer, P., Bajbouj, M., & Prehn, K. (2012). Effects of Taylor, M. S., & Bergmann, T. J. (1987). Organizational recruitment activi-
empathic paraphrasing—Extrinsic emotion regulation in social conflict. ties and applicants' reactions at different stages of the recruitment
Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 482. process. Personnel Psychology, 40, 261–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and rela- j.1744‐6570.1987.tb00604.x
tionship context as antecedents of person‐ and task‐focused Taylor, S. G., Kluemper, D. H., & Mossholder, K. W. (2010). Linking person-
interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, ality to interpersonal citizenship behaviour: The moderating effect of
255–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.87.2.255 empathy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83,
Shamay‐Tsoory, S. G. (2011). The neural bases for empathy. The Neurosci- 815–834. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X475794
entist, 17, 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858410379268 Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait‐based interactionist
Shamay‐Tsoory, S. G., Aharon‐Peretz, J., & Perry, D. (2009). Two systems model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517.
for empathy: A double dissociation between emotional and cognitive https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.88.3.500
empathy in inferior frontal gyrus versus ventromedial prefrontal Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures
lesions. Brain, 132, 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awn279 as predictors of job performance: A meta‐analytic review. Personnel
Shapiro, A. F., & Gottman, J. M. (2004). The specific affect coding system. Psychology, 44, 703–742.
In Couple observational coding systems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Titchener, E. B. (1909). Lectures on the experimental psychology of the thought
Erlbaum. processes. New York, NY: Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1037/10877‐000
Silvester, J., Patterson, F., Koczwara, A., & Ferguson, E. (2007). “Trust me Tonidandel, S., King, E. B., & Cortina, J. M. (2018). Big data methods:
…”: Psychological and behavioral predictors of perceived physician Leveraging modern data analytic techniques to build organizational
empathy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 519–527. https://doi.org/ science. Organizational Research Methods, 21, 525–547. https://doi.
10.1037/0021‐9010.92.2.519 org/10.1177/1094428116677299
Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy. Annals Toomey, E. C., & Rudolph, C. W. (2017). Age‐conditional effects in the
of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 81–96. affective arousal, empathy, and emotional labor linkage: Within‐
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. person evidence from an experience sampling study. Work, Aging and
(2004). Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory compo- Retirement, 4, 145–160.
nents of pain. Science, 303, 1157–1162. https://doi.org/10.1126/ Vachon, D. D., Lynam, D. R., & Johnson, J. A. (2014). The (non)relation
science.1093535 between empathy and aggression: Surprising results from a meta‐
Smith, A. (2006). Cognitive empathy and emotional empathy in human analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 751–773. https://doi.org/
behavior and evolution. The Psychological Record, 56, 3–21. https:// 10.1037/a0035236
doi.org/10.1007/BF03395534 Van der Graaff, J., Meeus, W., de Wied, M., van Boxtel, A., van Lier, P. A. C.,
Song, Z., Foo, M. D., & Uy, M. A. (2008). Mood spillover and crossover Koot, H. M., & Branje, S. (2016). Motor, affective and cognitive empa-
among dual‐earner couples: A cell phone event sampling study. Journal thy in adolescence: Interrelations between facial electromyography and
of Applied Psychology, 93, 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐ self‐reported trait and state measures. Cognition and Emotion, 30,
9010.93.2.443 745–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1027665
Sonnby–Borgström, M. (2002). Automatic mimicry reactions as related to van der Linden, D., Pekaar, K. A., Bakker, A. B., Schermer, J. A., Vernon, P.
differences in emotional empathy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, A., Dunkel, C. S., & Petrides, K. V. (2017). Overlap between the general
43, 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9450.00312 factor of personality and emotional intelligence: A meta‐analysis. Psy-
Sonnby‐Borgström, M., Jonsson, P., & Svensson, O. (2003). Emotional chological Bulletin, 143, 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000078
empathy as related to mimicry reactions at different levels of informa- Walter, H. (2012). Social cognitive neuroscience of empathy: Concepts, cir-
tion processing. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 3–23. https://doi. cuits, and genes. Emotion Review, 4, 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/
org/10.1023/A:1023608506243 1754073911421379
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, Watkins, T., Fehr, R., & He, W. (2018). Whatever it takes: Leaders' perceptions
355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010 of abusive supervision instrumentality. The Leadership Quarterly. Advance
Stel, M., & Vonk, R. (2010). Mimicry in social interaction: Benefits for online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.09.002
mimickers, mimickees, and their interaction. British Journal of Psychol- Waung, M., & Highhouse, S. (1997). Fear of conflict and empathic buffer-
ogy, 101, 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X465424 ing: Two explanations for the inflation of performance feedback.
Stiff, J. B., Dillard, J. P., Somera, L., Kim, H., & Sleight, C. (1988). Empathy, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 37–54.
communication, and prosocial behavior. Communication Monographs, https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2711
55, 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376166 Waytz, A. (2016, January/February). The limits of empathy. Harvard
Stocks, E. L., Lishner, D. A., Waits, B. L., & Downum, E. M. (2011). I'm Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/01/the‐limits‐
embarrassed for you: The effect of valuing and perspective taking on of‐empathy
empathic embarrassment and empathic concern. Journal of Applied Social Wellman, H. M. (2014). Making minds: How theory of mind develops.
Psychology, 41, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559‐1816.2010.00699.x Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:
Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory investigations of empathy. In L. Berkowitz oso/9780199334919.001.0001
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4) (pp. 271–314). Westbury, H. R., & Neumann, D. L. (2008). Empathy‐related responses to
New York: Academic Press. moving film stimuli depicting human and non‐human animal targets in
Stotland, E., Matthews, K. E., Sherman, S., Hansson, R. O., & Richardson, negative circumstances. Biological Psychology, 78, 66–74. https://doi.
B. Z. (1978). Empathy, fantasy and helping. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.12.009
Strayer, J. (1987). Affective and cognitive perspectives on empathy. In Westman, M. (2001). Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54,
N. Eisenberg, & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development 717–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726701546002
(pp. 218–244). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (1995). Crossover of stress, strain and resources
Tay, L., Woo, S. E., & Vermunt, J. K. (2014). A conceptual and methodolog- from one spouse to another. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16,
ical framework for psychometric isomorphism: Validation of multilevel 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160207
 10991379, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2348 by Biu Montpellier, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
192 CLARK ET AL.

Wolff, S. B., Pescosolido, A. T., & Druskat, V. U. (2002). Emotional intel-

ligence as the basis of leadership emergence in self‐managing teams. work, and women in the workplace. She received her BA from the
The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 505–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/ University of Michigan and MA and PhD in industrial‐organiza-
S1048‐9843(02)00141‐8 tional psychology from the Wayne State University.
Wondra, J. D., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2015). An appraisal theory of empathy
and other vicarious emotional experiences. Psychological Review, 122,
Melissa M. Robertson is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the
411–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039252
Owens Institute for Behavioral Research at the University of
Wu, N., Li, Z., & Su, Y. (2012). The association between oxytocin receptor
gene polymorphism (OXTR) and trait empathy. Journal of Affective Georgia. Her research focuses on relational processes, occupa-
Disorders, 138, 468–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.01.009 tional health, careers, and research methods. She received her
Yoder, P. J., Lloyd, B., & Symons, F. J. (2018). Observational measurement of MS and PhD in industrial‐organizational psychology from the Uni-
behavior. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
versity of Georgia.
Zaki, J. (2014). Empathy: A motivated account. Psychological Bulletin, 140,
1608–1647. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037679
Stephen Young is a Senior Research Scientist at the Center for
Zaki, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. (2008). It takes two: The interpersonal
nature of empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 19, 399–404. Creative Leadership in Greensboro, NC. His research focuses on
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9280.2008.02099.x empathy, employee engagement, feedback, leadership develop-
Zaki, J., Weber, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. (2009). The neural bases of ment, and leader assessment. He received his MS and a PhD in
empathic accuracy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, industrial‐organizational psychology from the Florida Institute of
106, 11382–11387. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0902666106
Technology.
Zickar, M. J., & Highhouse, S. (2001). Measuring prestige of journals in
industrial organizational psychology. The Industrial‐Organizational
Psychologist, 38, 29–36.
How to cite this article: Clark MA, Robertson MM, Young S.
“I feel your pain”: A critical review of organizational research
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHI ES
on empathy. J Organ Behav. 2019;40:166–192. https://doi.
Malissa A. Clark is an Assistant Professor of Industrial/Organiza-
org/10.1002/job.2348
tional Psychology at the University of Georgia. Her research inter-
ests include workaholism, the work‐family interface, emotions at