焦虑与共情关系的元分析回顾

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Travis K. Nair , Stephanie M. Waslin , Gabriela A. Rodrigues , Saumya Datta, Michael T. Moore , Laura E. Brumariu
{"title":"焦虑与共情关系的元分析回顾","authors":"Travis K. Nair ,&nbsp;Stephanie M. Waslin ,&nbsp;Gabriela A. Rodrigues ,&nbsp;Saumya Datta,&nbsp;Michael T. Moore ,&nbsp;Laura E. Brumariu","doi":"10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Although theory suggests that empathy may signal a risk for anxiety (Tone &amp; Tully, 2014), the relation between these constructs remains unclear due to the lack of a quantitative synthesis of empirical findings. We addressed this question by conducting three meta-analyses assessing anxiety and general, cognitive, and affective empathy (<em>k</em>’s = 70–102 samples; <em>N</em>’s = 19,410–25,102 participants). Results suggest that anxiety has a small and significant association with general empathy (<em>r</em> = .08). The relation of clinical anxiety with cognitive empathy was significant but very weak (<em>r =</em> −.03), and small for affective empathy (<em>r</em> = .16). Geographic region and the type of cognitive (e.g., perspective taking, fantasy) and affective empathy (e.g., affective resonance, empathic concern) emerged as moderators. Results suggest that anxiety has a weaker association with general empathy but a stronger association with affective empathy in participants from predominantly collectivistic geographic regions. Further, greater anxiety was weakly associated with less perspective-taking and greater fantasy, and anxiety had a more modest association with empathic concern than other types of affective empathy. Targeting affective empathy (e.g., promoting coping strategies when faced with others’ distress) in interventions for anxiety may be beneficial.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48390,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anxiety Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A meta-analytic review of the relations between anxiety and empathy\",\"authors\":\"Travis K. Nair ,&nbsp;Stephanie M. Waslin ,&nbsp;Gabriela A. Rodrigues ,&nbsp;Saumya Datta,&nbsp;Michael T. Moore ,&nbsp;Laura E. Brumariu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102795\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Although theory suggests that empathy may signal a risk for anxiety (Tone &amp; Tully, 2014), the relation between these constructs remains unclear due to the lack of a quantitative synthesis of empirical findings. We addressed this question by conducting three meta-analyses assessing anxiety and general, cognitive, and affective empathy (<em>k</em>’s = 70–102 samples; <em>N</em>’s = 19,410–25,102 participants). Results suggest that anxiety has a small and significant association with general empathy (<em>r</em> = .08). The relation of clinical anxiety with cognitive empathy was significant but very weak (<em>r =</em> −.03), and small for affective empathy (<em>r</em> = .16). Geographic region and the type of cognitive (e.g., perspective taking, fantasy) and affective empathy (e.g., affective resonance, empathic concern) emerged as moderators. Results suggest that anxiety has a weaker association with general empathy but a stronger association with affective empathy in participants from predominantly collectivistic geographic regions. Further, greater anxiety was weakly associated with less perspective-taking and greater fantasy, and anxiety had a more modest association with empathic concern than other types of affective empathy. Targeting affective empathy (e.g., promoting coping strategies when faced with others’ distress) in interventions for anxiety may be beneficial.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anxiety Disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Anxiety Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887618523001330\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anxiety Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887618523001330","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管理论表明,同理心可能预示着焦虑的风险(Tone &Tully, 2014),由于缺乏实证研究结果的定量综合,这些结构之间的关系仍然不清楚。为了解决这个问题,我们进行了三项荟萃分析,评估焦虑和一般、认知和情感共情(k = 70-102个样本;N = 19,410-25,102参与者)。结果表明,焦虑与一般共情有小而显著的关联(r = .08)。临床焦虑与认知共情的关系显著但极弱(r = - 0.03),与情感共情的关系较小(r = 0.16)。地理区域、认知类型(如视角、幻想)和情感共情类型(如情感共鸣、共情关注)成为调节因素。结果表明,在以集体主义为主的地理区域的参与者中,焦虑与一般共情的关联较弱,而与情感共情的关联较强。此外,更大的焦虑与更少的换位思考和更多的幻想弱相关,焦虑与移情关注的关联比其他类型的情感移情更温和。在焦虑干预中,以情感共情为目标(例如,在面对他人痛苦时促进应对策略)可能是有益的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A meta-analytic review of the relations between anxiety and empathy

Although theory suggests that empathy may signal a risk for anxiety (Tone & Tully, 2014), the relation between these constructs remains unclear due to the lack of a quantitative synthesis of empirical findings. We addressed this question by conducting three meta-analyses assessing anxiety and general, cognitive, and affective empathy (k’s = 70–102 samples; N’s = 19,410–25,102 participants). Results suggest that anxiety has a small and significant association with general empathy (r = .08). The relation of clinical anxiety with cognitive empathy was significant but very weak (r = −.03), and small for affective empathy (r = .16). Geographic region and the type of cognitive (e.g., perspective taking, fantasy) and affective empathy (e.g., affective resonance, empathic concern) emerged as moderators. Results suggest that anxiety has a weaker association with general empathy but a stronger association with affective empathy in participants from predominantly collectivistic geographic regions. Further, greater anxiety was weakly associated with less perspective-taking and greater fantasy, and anxiety had a more modest association with empathic concern than other types of affective empathy. Targeting affective empathy (e.g., promoting coping strategies when faced with others’ distress) in interventions for anxiety may be beneficial.

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
CiteScore
16.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: The Journal of Anxiety Disorders is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes research papers on all aspects of anxiety disorders for individuals of all age groups, including children, adolescents, adults, and the elderly. Manuscripts that focus on disorders previously classified as anxiety disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as the new category of illness anxiety disorder, are also within the scope of the journal. The research areas of focus include traditional, behavioral, cognitive, and biological assessment; diagnosis and classification; psychosocial and psychopharmacological treatment; genetics; epidemiology; and prevention. The journal welcomes theoretical and review articles that significantly contribute to current knowledge in the field. It is abstracted and indexed in various databases such as Elsevier, BIOBASE, PubMed/Medline, PsycINFO, BIOSIS Citation Index, BRS Data, Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences, Pascal Francis, Scopus, and Google Scholar.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信