ArticleCurrent issues in personality psychology2025
Empathy types in medical and pedagogical professions.
Article in Current issues in personality psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 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). PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE: 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.