PROCESAMIENTO Y ANÁLISIS DE LA INFORMACIÓN

Until the end of the 19th _{century, empathy was understood to be purely a philosophical aesthetic}

(Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2008). In 1909 the term empathy was coined by psychologist Edward Titchener, who translated it from the German term “Einfühlung” or “feeling

into”, however, it was Theodor Lipps’ work that transformed empathy into an important concept in

social and human sciences (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2008, p. 2)

Ashraf (2004), who traced back the historical and theoretical development of the concept of empathy, noticed that Sigmund Freud also adopted the notion of Einfühlung in his work. According to Ashraf, Freud comprehended empathy to be one person adopting the producing person's internal state and comparing it to their own internal state and experiences. Ashraf furthermore remarked that Allport believed empathy to stand midway between inference and intuition.

Growing from Lipps’ conception, empathy nowadays refers to feeling what another person is experiencing, and the capacity to recognise the emotions of others (Ashraf, 2004). Empathy is also the realisation that we are separate, diverse beings who are tethered to one another by similar experiences and the ability to feel the emotions and needs of others without losing our separate identities (Ashraf, 2004). Empathy is believed to be the very element which promotes pro-social and culturally valued behaviours, such as extending help to others (Ashraf, 2004). For instance, Ashraf points out that empathy is often lacking in highly aggressive individuals, antisocial persons, psychopaths, child molesters and rapists.

The nature of empathy is paradoxical, because it is the person’s capacity and desire to empathise that draw them to a helping profession or situation, but it is also the very pathway through which

vicarious traumatisation takes place (Salston & Figley, 2003). Succinctly, it is both the keystone to helping others as well as rendering one susceptible to the “cost of caring” (Figley, 2002a p. 1436). It seems that the greater a person’s capacity for empathy, the greater the risk of vicarious traumatisation. Stebnicki (2007) explains that in traditional Native American teaching, it is said that every time you reach out to someone, you give away a piece of yourself until, at some point, you require healing yourself. McCann and Pearlman (1990) bring the same point across in stating that repeated empathic connections with clients leave the therapist or helper emotionally impaired and depleted due to an accumulation of traumatic stories they have to contend with emotionally. According to Figley (2002a, p. 1434) empathy is one of the tools that is provided in the “art of

human therapy”. If empathy is not present, it is unlikely that therapeutic change or help in

whatever form will transpire.

It is believed that the degree of help or therapeutic change effected is directly linked to the degree of empathy expressed by the therapist or helping person (Figley, 2002a). Insight into the behaviours, thoughts and feelings of the other person is accomplished by projecting oneself into their position. In doing so, the therapist or helper might experience feelings parallel to those of the other person, such as fear, hurt, anger or emotional tumult (Figley, 2002a). It is in this sense that empathy becomes both a benefit and a cost in a therapeutic relationship. However, this experience of emotional projection is not limited to therapeutic relationships only. Seeing that empathy is an innate human tendency, it would quite likely extend to any relationship where individuals emotionally connect – for whatever reason – around a stressful, traumatic, or life-changing event. Furthermore, empathy is seen as a multidimensional, complex concept that has many definitions (Ashraf, 2004). D’Ambrosio, Olivier, Didon and Besche (2009) point out that, in recent years, some consensus has been reached on the two main dimensions of empathy. The first is cognitive empathy, which relates to the intellectual understanding of what another person is feeling. The second is affective empathy, which refers to the possession of an appropriate emotional response to the attributed mental state of the other person.

Because of the wide use of the concept of empathy across many strata of social and psychological thinking, it has always been somewhat vague, speculative and confusing (Ashraf, 2004). Empathy varies and has different meanings in different branches of psychology and social studies (Ashraf, 2004). Although there is literature on empathy in relation to vicarious trauma and secondary traumatic stress, there is still a significant dearth in research performed on empathy itself

(MacRitchie, 2006). Furthermore, it is a concept central to modern-day psychology as well as Figley’s model, which formed a cornerstone in the present study.

Finally, even though the capacity to empathise differs from person to person, it is nonetheless an innate human trait, as mentioned before. Therefore, it is not unrealistic to accept that the claims workers earmarked by the study could similarly connect to their traumatised clients around their traumatic experiences and losses. This, of course, could potentially cause psychological and emotional distress. In fact, at the outset of the study, the importance of empathy in claims workers was somewhat underestimated. The present study investigated the relationship between the level of empathy and the vicarious trauma measures utilised. It was hoped that, looking at this elusive, paradoxical concept might add much needed information to the field of traumatology in clarifying the role of empathy in the process of vicarious traumatisation. The next correlate to be considered is that of social support.