为什么我们应该拒绝同理心的限制性同构匹配定义

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Emotion Review Pub Date : 2022-05-02 DOI:10.1177/17540739221082215
Brett A. Murphy, S. Lilienfeld, Sara B. Algoe
{"title":"为什么我们应该拒绝同理心的限制性同构匹配定义","authors":"Brett A. Murphy, S. Lilienfeld, Sara B. Algoe","doi":"10.1177/17540739221082215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A growing cadre of influential scholars has converged on a circumscribed definition of empathy as restricted only to feeling the same emotion that one perceives another is feeling. We argue that this restrictive isomorphic matching (RIM) definition is deeply problematic because (1) it deviates dramatically from traditional conceptualizations of empathy and unmoors the construct from generations of scientific research and clinical practice; (2) insistence on an isomorphic form undercuts much of the functional value of empathy from multiple perspectives of analysis; and (3) combining the opposing concepts of isomorphic matching and self-other awareness implicitly requires motivational content, causing the RIM definition to implicitly require the kind of non-matching emotional content that it explicitly seeks to exclude.","PeriodicalId":48064,"journal":{"name":"Emotion Review","volume":"14 1","pages":"167 - 181"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why We Should Reject the Restrictive Isomorphic Matching Definition of Empathy\",\"authors\":\"Brett A. Murphy, S. Lilienfeld, Sara B. Algoe\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17540739221082215\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A growing cadre of influential scholars has converged on a circumscribed definition of empathy as restricted only to feeling the same emotion that one perceives another is feeling. We argue that this restrictive isomorphic matching (RIM) definition is deeply problematic because (1) it deviates dramatically from traditional conceptualizations of empathy and unmoors the construct from generations of scientific research and clinical practice; (2) insistence on an isomorphic form undercuts much of the functional value of empathy from multiple perspectives of analysis; and (3) combining the opposing concepts of isomorphic matching and self-other awareness implicitly requires motivational content, causing the RIM definition to implicitly require the kind of non-matching emotional content that it explicitly seeks to exclude.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48064,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emotion Review\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"167 - 181\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emotion Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739221082215\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emotion Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739221082215","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

越来越多有影响力的学者对移情的定义进行了界定,认为移情仅限于感受一个人对另一个人的感受。我们认为,这种限制性同构匹配(RIM)定义存在严重问题,因为:(1)它严重偏离了传统的共情概念,并脱离了几代科学研究和临床实践的构建;(2)从多个分析角度看,对同构形式的坚持削弱了共情的功能价值;(3)将同构匹配和自我-他者意识这两个对立的概念结合起来,隐性地要求动机内容,从而导致RIM定义隐性地要求其明确寻求排除的非匹配情感内容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why We Should Reject the Restrictive Isomorphic Matching Definition of Empathy
A growing cadre of influential scholars has converged on a circumscribed definition of empathy as restricted only to feeling the same emotion that one perceives another is feeling. We argue that this restrictive isomorphic matching (RIM) definition is deeply problematic because (1) it deviates dramatically from traditional conceptualizations of empathy and unmoors the construct from generations of scientific research and clinical practice; (2) insistence on an isomorphic form undercuts much of the functional value of empathy from multiple perspectives of analysis; and (3) combining the opposing concepts of isomorphic matching and self-other awareness implicitly requires motivational content, causing the RIM definition to implicitly require the kind of non-matching emotional content that it explicitly seeks to exclude.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Emotion Review
Emotion Review PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
3.70%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Emotion Review is a fully peer reviewed scholarly journal. It adheres to a blinded peer review process in which the reviewer"s name is routinely withheld from the author unless the reviewer requests a preference for their identity to be revealed. All manuscripts are reviewed initially by the Editors and only those papers that meet the scientific and editorial standards of the journal, and fit within the aims and scope of the journal, will be sent for outside review. Emotion Review will focus on ideas about emotion, with "emotion" broadly defined. The Review will publish articles presenting new theories, offering conceptual analyses, reviewing the literature, and debating and critiquing conceptual issues.
期刊最新文献
The Need for New Perspectives on Arousal in Emotion Theory Yearning for the Irretrievable: Nostalgia and Time Curiosity and the Regulation of Affective Memory On the Nature of Nostalgia: A Psychological Perspective Is “Arousal,” as a Scientific Concept, Worse than Useless?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1