Paulus Christoph M, Meinken Saskia
Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Curr Issues Personal Psychol. 2025 Feb 28;13(3):149-157. doi: 10.5114/cipp/195314. eCollection 2025.
The aim of the study was to find out whether certain types of empathy are over- or underrepresented in medical and educational professions. We used the following four types of empathy profiles: "Situation-dependent altruists" (A) have high affective and cognitive empathy aspects with high personal distress. "High-functioning empaths" (B) differ from pattern A by the low distress. People who have neither clear affective nor cognitive empathy traits, but are characterized by high distress, are "low neurotic empaths" (C). Types whose mean scores on all three aspects were below the mean are referred to as "low empaths" (D).
The sample consisted of 439 subjects. The group of medical professionals included doctors, nursing staff, and other medical staff. The group of educators included teachers, social pedagogues, educators, social workers and special needs teachers. We used the German version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) to measure empathy.
The two occupational groups differed from each other non-significantly in their respective distribution. In the nursing staff sample, profile B is clearly overrepresented and profile C is clearly underrepresented. Nursing staff therefore have a high level of emotional concern and perspective taking together with lower distress. Nurses and pedagogical staff occur in our sample most frequently in the empathic pattern A and B.
The typologization of empathy skills proved to be a good method of describing affective and cognitive aspects of empathy within a personality. In addition, the results emphasize the importance of empathy training, which is well established in medical education but virtually non-existent in pedagogical education.
本研究的目的是探究某些类型的同理心在医学和教育行业中是否存在比例过高或过低的情况。我们使用了以下四种同理心类型:“情境依赖利他者”(A)具有较高的情感和认知同理心,且个人痛苦程度较高。“高功能同理心者”(B)与模式A的不同之处在于痛苦程度较低。既没有明确的情感也没有认知同理心特征,但痛苦程度较高的人是“低神经质同理心者”(C)。在所有三个方面的平均得分均低于平均值的类型被称为“低同理心者”(D)。
样本由439名受试者组成。医学专业人员组包括医生、护理人员和其他医务人员。教育工作者组包括教师、社会教育工作者、教育工作者、社会工作者和特殊需求教师。我们使用德语版的人际反应指数(IRI)来测量同理心。
两个职业群体在各自的分布上差异不显著。在护理人员样本中,模式B明显占比过高,模式C明显占比过低。因此,护理人员具有较高的情感关注和换位思考能力,同时痛苦程度较低。在我们的样本中,护士和教育工作人员最常出现在同理心模式A和B中。
同理心技能的类型划分被证明是描述人格中同理心情感和认知方面的一种好方法。此外,研究结果强调了同理心培训的重要性,这在医学教育中已得到充分确立,但在师范教育中几乎不存在。