Your question is very interesting because it creates awareness of the complexity of the empathy concept. Firstly, the roots of the concept are not simple. In 1909 Edward Bradford Titchener (1867-1927) used it to translate the german word Einfühlungsvermögen in the work of Theordor Litt. Alix and James Strachey (1887–1967) used the expression empathy to translate Freud's Einfühlung. The German originals are obviously not coined as special expression, but make sense in the context of their time. Empathy in English is a scientific word (see Bettelheim on the Freud translation). I came in to contact with the concept in work of Carl Rogers. I even gave it a normative significance. I am a bit surprised that for you empathy refers to suffering, for me it can aim at all emotions. I find the opposite when in deny that you can penetrate an other person's emotions. I would than see alterity or distance as an opposite. You can alo meet feelings of happiness with empathy.

Hello Charles, 

well, I come from an economic / psychological school of thought and all I have found so far on empathy seems to refer to the perspective taking and emotional connection to people in need. The reason why I ask for the opposite is that I want to understand the behavioral outcomes that follow the empathy emotion. So if I see someone suffering, I feel (for example) compassion and may help or escape the situation (so I don't have to see that suffering anymore). But what kind of behavior is elicited if a person "looks" at happy people (people that are maybe even way better off than the person?). What kind of emotional dimensions are these within the empathy construct? I can think of maybe also envy, jealousy, greed, .... with the resulting behavior (either taking something from the happy or work harder to reach their state). But I'm not sure how these emotions fit to the empathy construct and what other emotions are there. 

Do you have any literature on this that you can recommend?

Hello Charlott,

When you talk about perspective taking and emotional connection, am I right in thinking you are referring to the theory of mind construct? If this isn't something you've come across yet, it may be worth taking a look at that literature.

I know it's quite an old theory, from a psychology point of view, but it seems to capture in some way what you're interested in. For example, the idea of theory of mind is about having the capacity for 'metarepresentation' - the ability to pretend and to understand mental states in others. That metarepresentation ability, as I understand it, would pertain to both negative emotional states (suffering) and positive mental states (happiness, etc) - so I am coming close to Prof Berg's understanding, in which 'empathy' is understood as an all-encompassing construct meaning the ability to perceive and understand *all* types of mental state in others.

It seems what you're looking for, then, isn't so much an 'opposite' of empathy, but rather to understand whether opposing emotional states evoke different responses in empathic observers. I'm not aware of any research that has looked at this, so you could be exploring new territory with such research questions. It might be interesting to examine the emotions of people after they observe someone experiencing suffering or happiness, and to see how their capacity for empathy affects the type and strength of emotion reported.

Hey Charlott,

I am not a psychologist but am currently writing an articel on psychopathic traits. In all instrument assessing such triats addresses one of psychopathy's core traits which is callous/un-emotional traits. This affective dimension taps lack of empathy and shallow emotions, for instance.  

If assessing youths, you could use Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI), which is a self-report instrument of in total 50 items. 

/Cam

Hey Charlott,

I am not a psychologist but am currently writing an articel on psychopathic traits. In all instrument assessing such triats addresses one of psychopathy's core traits which is callous/un-emotional traits. This affective dimension taps lack of empathy and shallow emotions, for instance.  

If assessing youths, you could use Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI), which is a self-report instrument of in total 50 items. 

/Cam

Hi Charlott,

Please think of a councellor or a therapist who is confronted with a client who has solved his/her problem and who feels very happy. Through empathy he can share that feeling albeit it differs from  suffering...

Charles

I have passed your question on to researchers working within social work as they spend a lot of time examining how social workers attempt to balance their own highly developed empathy whilst encouraging the development of empathetic understanding in others. hopefully they will have some useful suggestions

I Charlie, 

I just finished reading about empathy in the animal kingdom and in human beings. It contains an extensive research and many connections to the real world. 

It is from Franz de Waal and it is called the Age of Empathy. 

Good luck for your work! 

Arben

Hi Charlott,

While not an expert in on empathy, I think it is good to understand that empathy is NOT an emotion in itself, as you seem to suggest. Rather, it is an ability to understand (cognitive) or feel (affective) what someone else is experiencing, good or bad.

best,

Remco

In continuation of the above comment, you may consider searching for 'apathy':

1. Marin, R. S. (1991). Apathy: a neuropsychiatric syndrome. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences.

2. Marin, R. S., Biedrzycki, R. C., & Firinciogullari, S. (1991). Reliability and validity of the Apathy Evaluation Scale. Psychiatry research, 38(2), 143-162.

3. Levy, M. L., Cummings, J. L., Fairbanks, L. A., Masterman, D., Miller, B. L., Craig, A. H., ... & Litvan, I. (1998). Apathy is not depression. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 10(3), 314-319.

"the understanding and/or feelings of an individual when he or she sees others, who are better off (who experience PROSPERITY instead of suffering)"

This situation could be 'the acid test' that discriminates between two kinds of role-taking ('role-taking' or 'empathy': I agree with Tim's answer). When the ability of role-taking is applied to fictive (or historically remote) characters, we share their 'being better off' in a easy, automatic way. However when our neighbours increase their prosperity, the task of sharing their happiness can sometimes be an effortful task.

On the other hand, the ability to understand and the feelings of other people suffering and to share their feelings is applied in a more universal manner. Indeed, leaving aside psychopathic traits (Camilla, above),  it is almost constantly applied in an easy, automatic way. Here the only exception arises when the observer can imagine costly helping behaviours. 

Thank you all for your very helpful comments! I think that I now have a good starting point for my resarch :)