Empathy, sympathy, and emotion regulation: A meta-analytic review.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empathy, sympathy, and emotion regulation are core components of social-emotional development. Regulating vicariously induced negative emotions is thought to support feeling empathy and sympathy for others in need, but empirical evidence for such effects is mixed. Moreover, despite the longstanding conceptual distinction between empathy and sympathy, most researchers refer to and measure these constructs interchangeably. This meta-analysis examined associations between emotion regulation and empathy and/or sympathy in childhood and adolescence, as well as potential methodological, study, and sample moderators. Analyses were conducted on 58 studies (75 effect sizes; N = 25,831). There was a significant and positive overall association between emotion regulation and empathy/sympathy (r = .19, p < .001); however, most scales assessing empathy were conflated with other constructs. Accounting for conflation, emotion regulation was related to sympathy (r = .24, p < .001) but not empathy (r = .04, p = .38). Moreover, the association between emotion regulation and empathy/sympathy was not significant when baseline respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) and RSA reactivity were examined as proxies of emotion regulation. Results were largely similar across sample characteristics (e.g., age group, sex, and culture). Conceptual implications for differentiating empathy and sympathy are discussed, as well as methodological considerations to maximize the quality and clarity of research on emotion regulation, empathy, and sympathy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it