relationship between empathy and problem solving

Get new issue alerts Get alerts
Submit your manuscript

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

Relationship Between the Problem-Solving Skills and Empathy Skills of Operating Room Nurses

AY, Fatma 1* ; POLAT, Şehrinaz; KASHIMI, Tennur

1 PhD, RN, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Midwifery, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Turkey

2 PhD, RN, Directorate of Nursing Services, Hospital of Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Turkey

3 MS, RN, Director, Operating Room, Hospital of Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Turkey.

Accepted for publication: January 21, 2019

*Address correspondence to: Fatma AY, No.25, Dr. Tevfik Saglam Street, Dr. Zuhuratbaba District, Bakirkoy, Istanbul 34147, Turkey. Tel: +90 212 4141500 ext. 40140; Fax: +90 212 4141515; E-mail: [email protected]

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this article as: Ay, F., Polat, Ş., & Kashimi, T. (2019). Relationship between the problem-solving skills and empathy skills of operating room nurses. The Journal of Nursing Research , 28 (2), e75. https://doi.org/10.1097/jnr.0000000000000357

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background

The use of empathy in problem solving and communication is a focus of nursing practice and is of great significance in raising the quality of patient care.

Purpose

The purposes of this study are to investigate the relationship between problem solving and empathy among operating room nurses and to explore the factors that relate to these two competencies.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional, descriptive study. Study data were gathered using a personal information form, the Interpersonal Problem Solving Inventory, and the Basic Empathy Scale ( N = 80). Descriptive and comparative statistics were employed to evaluate the study data.

Results

Age, marital status, and career length were not found to affect the subscale scores of cognitive empathy ( p > .05). A negative correlation was found between the subscale scores for “diffidence” and “cognitive empathy.” Moreover, the emotional empathy scores of the graduate nurses were higher than those of the master's/doctorate degree nurses to a degree that approached significance ( p = .078). Furthermore, emotional empathy levels were found to decrease as the scores for insistent/persistent approach, lack of self-confidence, and educational level increased ( p < .05). The descriptive characteristics of the participating nurses were found not to affect their problem-solving skills.

Conclusions/Implications for Practice

Problem solving is a focus of nursing practice and of great importance for raising the quality of patient care. Constructive problem-solving skills affect cognitive empathy skills. Educational level and career length were found to relate negatively and level of self-confidence was found to relate positively with level of cognitive empathy. Finally, lower empathy scores were associated with difficult working conditions in operating rooms, intense stress, and high levels of potential stress-driven conflicts between workers in work settings.

Introduction

Healthcare institutions are where individuals seek remedies to their health problems. These institutions face problems, which relate to both employees and care recipients. These problems may occur spontaneously and require immediate solution. Moreover, these problems require that the preferred remedies be adapted to address the unique nature of both organizational circumstances and individual requirements. Therefore, it is important that nurses, who are a major component of the healthcare system, have problem-solving skills.

Operating rooms are complex, high-risk environments with intense levels of stress that require rapid judgment making and fast implementation of appropriate decisions to increase patients' chances of survival ( Kanan, 2011 ; Jeon, Lakanmaa, Meretoja, & Leino-Kilpi, 2017 ). Furthermore, aseptic principles may never be compromised, and a high level of coordination and cooperation among team members should be maintained in these areas ( Kanan, 2011 ; Sandelin & Gustafsson, 2015 ). The members of a surgical team may vary in the operating room ( Sandelin & Gustafsson, 2015 ; Sonoda, Onozuka, & Hagihara, 2018 ). Under these difficult conditions, time management and workload are important stress factors for nurses ( Happell et al., 2013 ; Suresh, Matthews, & Coyne, 2013 ). At the same time, operating room nurses are legally responsible for the nature and quality of the healthcare service received by patients before, during, and after their surgical intervention ( Kanan, 2011 ). The American Nurses Association defines a nurse as “the healthcare professional establishing, coordinating and administering the care while applying the nursing process in an aim to meet the identified physiological, psychological, sociocultural and spiritual needs of patients who are potentially at the risk of jeopardized protective reflexes or self-care ability because of surgery or invasive intervention” ( Association of periOperative Registered Nurses, 2015 ).

Problem solving is the most critical aspect of the nursing practice. The fact that nursing requires mental and abstract skills, such as identifying individual needs and finding appropriate remedies, was first stated in 1960s. In 1960s, the nursing theorists Abdellah, Orem, and Levin emphasized the mental aspect of nursing. They argued that the most critical requirement of nurses in the clinical field is the ability to decide on and plan the right action and that nursing care should be founded on a sound knowledge base ( Taşci, 2005 ).

The World Health Organization has stated that “taking measures and applying a problem-solving approach to provide appropriate care is one of the compulsory competencies of nurses” ( Taşci, 2005 ). Thus, enhancing the problem-solving skills of nurses is of great importance in raising the quality of patient care ( Taylor, 2000 ; Yu & Kirk, 2008 ). On the other hand, Bagnal (1981) argued that people with problem-solving skills need to be equipped with personal traits including innovation, clear manifestation of preferences and decisions, having a sense of responsibility, flexible thinking, courage and adventurousness, ability to show distinct ideas, self-confidence, a broad area of interest, acting rationally and objectively, creativity, productivity, and critical perspective (as cited in Çam & Tümkaya, 2008 ).

To provide the best surgical care to a patient, team members must work together effectively ( Sonoda et al., 2018 ). One of the most important factors affecting the quality of healthcare service delivery is effective communication between healthcare professionals and healthcare recipients, with empathy forming the basis for effective communication.

Because of the intrinsic nature of the nursing profession, nurses should have empathy skills. Thus, empathy is the essence of the nursing profession ( Fields et al., 2004 ; Vioulac, Aubree, Massy, & Untas, 2016 ). A review of resources in the literature on problem solving reveals that gathering problem-related data is the first major step toward determining the root causes of a problem. In this respect, empathy is an important skill that helps properly identify a problem. On the basis of the definition of empathy, sensing another person's feelings and thoughts and placing oneself in his or her position or feeling from within his or her frame of reference should work to improve one's problem-solving skills, particularly those skills related to social problem solving ( Taşci, 2005 ; Topçu, Baker, & Aydin, 2010 ; Vioulac et al., 2016 ). It is possible to explain empathic content emotionally as well as cognitively. Emotional empathy (EE) means feeling the emotions of another person and providing the most appropriate response based on his or her emotional state. This is very important in patient–nurse communications. Cognitive empathy (CE) is the ability to recognize the feelings of another without experiencing those feelings yourself ( de Kemp, Overbeek, de Wied, Engels, & Scholte, 2007 ).

Gender, age, level of education, marital status, years of work, duration working at current institution, and problem-solving situations have been shown in the literature not to affect the problem-solving or empathy skills of nurses ( Abaan & Altintoprak, 2005 ; Kelleci & Gölbaşi, 2004 ; Yu & Kirk, 2008 ). Empathy is especially critical to the quality of nursing care and is an essential component of any form of caring relationship. The findings in the literature regarding empathy among nurses are inconsistent ( Yu & Kirk, 2008 ), and no findings in the literature address the relationship between problem-solving skills and empathy skills in operating room nurses.

Today, the healthcare system demands that nurses use their professional knowledge to handle patient problems and needs in flexible and creative ways. Problem solving is a primary focus of the nursing practice and is of great importance to raising the quality of patient care ( Kelleci & Gölbaşi, 2004 ; Yu & Kirk, 2008 ). Enhancing the problem-solving and empathy skills of nurses may be expected to facilitate their identification of the sources of problems encountered during the delivery of healthcare services and their resolution of these problems.

The purposes of this study are to investigate the relationship between problem solving and empathy in operating room nurses and to explore the factors related to these two competencies.

Study Model and Hypotheses

This study is a cross-sectional and descriptive study. The three hypotheses regarding the relationships between the independent variables are as follows:

H1: Sociodemographic characteristics affect problem-solving skills.
H2: Sociodemographic characteristics affect level of empathy.
H3: Problem-solving skills are positively and significantly correlated with empathy.

Study Population and Sample

The study was conducted during the period of May–June 2015 at three hospitals affiliated with Istanbul University. The study population consisted of 121 nurses who were currently working in the operating rooms of these hospitals. The study sample consisted of the 80 nurses who volunteered to participate and answered all of the questions on the inventory.

Data Collection Tool

Study data were gathered using a personal information form, the Interpersonal Problem Solving Inventory (IPSI), and the Basic Empathy Scale.

Personal information form

This questionnaire, created by the researchers, is composed of 10 questions on the age, gender, educational background, organization and department, position, and organizational and professional functions of the respondent.

Interpersonal problem solving inventory

The IPSI, developed and validated by Çam and Tümkaya (2008) , was used in this study. The Cronbach's α internal consistency coefficients of the IPSI subscales were previously evaluated at between .67 and .91. The IPSI includes 50 items, all of which are scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 = strictly inappropriate and 5 = fully appropriate . The lack of self-confidence (LSC) subscale assesses lack of confidence in problem solving. The constructive problem solving (CPS) subscale assesses emotions, thoughts, and behaviors that contribute to the effective and constructive solution of interpersonal problems. The negative approach to the problem subscale assesses intensely the negative emotions and thoughts such as helplessness, pessimism, and disappointment that are experienced when an interpersonal problem is encountered. The abstaining from responsibility subscale assesses failure to take responsibility for solving the problem. The persistent approach (PA) subscale assesses self-assertive/persistent thoughts and behaviors in solving problems encountered in interpersonal relationships. A high score on a subscale indicates a high interpersonal-problem-solving capability for that subscale category ( Çam & Tümkaya, 2008 ). A high score on the negative approach to the problem subscale indicates a higher likelihood of experiencing intense negative feelings and thoughts such as helplessness, pessimism, and sadness when encountering a problem. A high score on CPS indicates that the respondent will show more of the emotions, thoughts, and behaviors that contribute to the problem in an effective and constructive way. A low level of self-confidence indicates that the respondent will exhibit low self-confidence toward effectively resolving a problem. A high score on the abstaining from responsibility subscale indicates a high inclination to assume responsibility to resolve a problem ( Table 1 ). The high level of insistent approach indicates that the participant is more willing to solve problems ( Çam & Tümkaya, 2008 ). In this study, the Cronbach's α reliability coefficients were .901, .899, .763, .679, and .810, respectively.

Basic empathy skill scale

The Basic Empathy Skill Scale was developed by Jolliffe and Farrington (2006) and validated by Topçu et al. (2010) in Turkish. It is a 5-Likert scale (1 = s trictly disagree and 5 = strictly agree ) consisting of 20 items, of which nine measure CE and 11 measure EE. The Cronbach's α coefficients that were calculated for the reliability study range between .76 and .80. The lowest possible scores are 9 and 45 and the highest possible scores are 11 and 55 for the CE and EE subscales, respectively. A high score on the CE subscale indicates that the CE level is high, and a high score on the EE subscale indicates that the EE level is high ( Topçu et al., 2010 ). The two subscales of the Basic Empathy Skill Scale have been found to be highly reliable. The Cronbach's α reliability coefficients in this study were .782 for the CE subscale and .649 for the EE subscale.

Data Collection

The study was conducted between May and June 2015 at three hospitals affiliated with Istanbul University. The researcher explained the study to those nurses who agreed to participate. The questionnaire form was distributed to the participants, the purpose of the investigation was clarified, and permission to use participant data was obtained. The participants completed the questionnaire on their own, and the completed questionnaires were collected afterward. The time required to complete the questionnaire was 15–20 minutes in total.

Evaluation of Data

Number Cruncher Statistical System 2007 (Kaysville, UT, USA) software was used to perform statistical analysis. To compare the quantitative data, in addition to using descriptive statistical methods (mean, standard deviation, median, frequency, ratio, minimum, maximum), the Student t test was used to compare the parameters with the regular distribution in the two groups and the Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the parameters without normal distribution in the two groups. In addition, a one-way analysis of variance test was used to compare three or more groups with normal distribution, and a Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare three or more groups without normal distribution. Pearson's correlation analysis and Spearman's correlation analysis were used to evaluate the relationships among the parameters. Finally, linear regression analysis was employed to evaluate multivariate data. Significance was determined by a p value of < .05.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical conformity approval was obtained from the Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Board at Istanbul Medipol University (108400987-165, issued on March 30, 2015). Written consent was obtained from the administrations of the participating hospitals. Furthermore, the informed consent of nurses who volunteered to participate was obtained. Permission to use the abovementioned scales that were used in this study as data collection tools was obtained via e-mail from their original authors.

Eighty nurses (97.5% female, n = 78; 2.5% male, n = 2) were enrolled as participants. The age of participants ranged between 24 and 64 (mean = 37.56 ± 8.12) years, mean years of professional nursing experience was 15.84 ± 8.30, and mean years working in the current hospital was 13.19 ± 8.23. Other descriptive characteristics for the participants are provided in Table 2 .

A comparison of scale subdimension scores revealed a negative and statistically significant correlation at a level of 22.3%. Statistical significance was reached only between the LSC subscale and the CE subscale ( r = −.223, p = .047; Table 3 ). Thus, a higher LSC score was associated with a lower CE score.

Comparisons between participants' descriptive characteristics and subdimension scores on the problem-solving skill scale revealed no significant differences. Thus, demographic characteristics such as age, educational background, and career length were found to have no influence on problem-solving skills ( p > .05; Table 4 ).

Age, marital status, and professional career length were not found to affect the CE and EE subscale scores, with no statistically significant correlations found between the two subscales ( p > .05; Table 4 ). However, the EE scores of undergraduate nurses were found to be higher than those of postgraduate nurses, at a level that approached statistical significance ( p = .078). In addition, the average CE scores of nurses who had worked for 1–10 and 11–20 years were higher than those of nurses who had worked for 21 years or more, at a level that approached statistical significance ( p = .066).

A statistically significant difference was found between mean years working in the current hospital and educational background, respectively, and CE scores ( p = .027 and p = .013; Table 4 ). On the basis of paired comparison analysis, the CE scores of participants with 1–10 years of working experience at their current hospital were higher than those with ≥ 21 years of working experience at their current hospital ( p = .027). Also on the basis of paired comparison analysis, the CE score of participants educated to the undergraduate level was found to be higher at a statistically significant level than those educated to the master's/doctorate degree level ( p = .013).

The comparison of problem-solving skill scores by descriptive characteristics revealed no statistically significant difference between subscale scores and the variables of age, marital status, length of professional and organizational career, or educational background ( p > .05). Thus, the descriptive characteristics of the participants did not affect their problem-solving skills.

Regression Analysis of Risk Factors Affecting Cognitive and Empathy Skills

Variables found after univariate analysis to have significance levels of p < .01 were subsequently modeled and evaluated. A regression analysis was conducted to determine the effect on CE skills of educational level, duration of institutional work, CPS level, and self-insecurity level. The explanatory power of this model was 29.9% ( R 2 = .299), and the model was significant ( p < .001). As a result of the analysis, CPS ( p = .006), educational status of graduate ( p < .001), and working for the current hospital for a period of more than 20 years ( p = .004) were found to have a significant and positive influence on the CE score.

A 1-unit increase in the CPS score was found to increase CE skills by 0.139 points (β = 0.139, 95% CI [0.041, 0.237], p < .01). For education, graduate education was found to decrease the CE score by 4.520 points (β = −4.520, 95% CI [−6.986, −2.054], p < .001). For duration working for the current hospital, working for the same institution for a period exceeding 20 years was found to decrease the CE score by 3.429 points (β = −3.429, 95% CI [−5.756, −1.102], p < .05). In addition, a 1-unit increase in the LSC score was found to decrease the CE score by 0.114 points, which did not achieve statistical significance (β = 0.114, 95% CI [−0.325, 0.096], p > .05).

Regression analysis was used to evaluate the effects of education, PA, and LSC on the risk factors affecting EE. As a result of this evaluation, the explanatory power of the model was determined as 15.3% ( R 2 = .153), which was significant despite the low level ( F = 3.388, p = .001). The effects of PA ( p = .021) and educational status ( p = .015) on the EE score were shown through analysis to be statistically significant ( Table 5 ). A 1-unit increase in PA score was found to increase the EE score by 0.323 points (β = 0.323, 95% CI [0.049, 0.596], p < .05). For education, having a graduate education was found to decrease the EE score by 3.989 points (β = −3.989, 95% CI [−7.193, −0.786], p < .05). Moreover, the LSC score was found to be 0.119 points lower than the EE score. However, this result was not statistically significant (β = −0.193, 95% CI [−0.467, 0.080], p > .05). Dummy variables were used in the regression analysis of sociodemographic characteristics (educational status and years working for the current hospital).

This study found that age, marital status, educational background, years of professional working experience, and years working for the current hospital did not affect the problem-solving skills of the participants. In the literature, the findings of several studies indicate that characteristics such as age, educational background, department of service, and career length do not affect the problem-solving skills of nurses ( Abaan & Altintoprak, 2005 ; Kelleci & Gölbaşi, 2004 ; Yu & Kirk, 2008 ), whereas other studies indicate that these variables do affect these skills ( Ançel, 2006 ; Watt-Watson, Garfinkel, Gallop, Stevens, & Streiner, 2000 ; Yu & Kirk, 2008 ). However, beyond these characteristics, some studies have reported a positive correlation between the problem-solving skills of nurses and their educational level, with this correlation mediated by the physical conditions of the workplace, good relationships with colleagues, and educational background ( Yildiz & Güven, 2009 ). These findings suggest that factors affecting the empathy and problem-solving skills of nurses working in operating rooms differ from known and expected factors.

Operating room nurses deliver dynamic nursing care that requires attention and close observation because of the fast turnover of patients. In addition to the problem-solving skills that they use during the patient care process, these nurses must use or operate a myriad of lifesaving technological devices and equipment ( AbuAlRub, 2004 ; Özgür, Yildirim, & Aktaş, 2008 ). The circumstances in which nurses employ their problem-solving skills are generally near-death critical conditions and emergencies. Furthermore, operating rooms are more isolated than other areas of the hospital, which affects nurses who work in operating rooms and intensive care units ( AbuAlRub, 2004 ; Özgür et al., 2008 ).

Communication is a critical factor that affects the delivery of healthcare services. Communication does not only take place between a service recipient and a provider. To establish a teamwork philosophy between employees, it is essential to build effective communication ( Sandelin & Gustafsson, 2015 ). Empathic communication helps enhance the problem-solving skills of nurses as they work to learn about individual experiences ( Kumcağiz, Yilmaz, Çelik, & Avci, 2011 ). Studies in the literature have found that nurses who are satisfied with their relationships with colleagues, physicians, and supervisors have a high level of problem-solving skills ( Abaan & Altintoprak, 2005 ; Kumcağiz et al., 2011 ) and that higher problem-solving skills are associated with a higher level of individual achievement ( Abaan & Altintoprak, 2005 ; Chan, 2001 ). Another finding of this study is that CPS increases the cognitive emphatic level. This may be attributed to constructive problem-solving skills increasing CE, as these skills are associated with feelings, thoughts, and behaviors that contribute to problem resolution.

A review of the literature on empathy and communication skills revealed, as expected, that these skills increased with level of education ( Kumcağiz et al., 2011 ; Vioulac et al., 2016 ). However, a number of studies have reported no significant correlation between age, marital status, and professional working experience and empathy skills or communication abilities in nurses ( Kumcağiz et al., 2011 ; Yu & Kirk, 2008 ).

EE is assumed to be a more intuitive reaction to emotions. Factors that affect EE are nurses working with small patient groups, frequent contact with patient groups, and long periods spent accompanying or being in close contact with patient groups ( Vioulac et al., 2016 ). Studies in the literature have reported no correlation between the empathy skills of nurses and demographic characteristics ( Vioulac et al., 2016 ). This study supports this finding, with the empathy skills of operating room nurses found to be close to the peak value of the scale.

Studies in the literature reveal a positive correlation between empathy and career length ( Watt-Watson et al., 2000 ; Yu & Kirk, 2008 ) as well as a correlation between increased professional experience and lower empathy ( Yu & Kirk, 2008 ). This study found an association between longer periods working for the same hospital and higher levels of education with lower empathy scores. This may be attributed to the difficult working conditions in operating rooms, intense stress, and high level of potential stress-driven conflicts between employees in work settings.

Stress is a major factor that affects the empathy skills and relationship-building abilities of nurses ( Vioulac et al., 2016 ). Nurses are exposed to a wide variety of stressors such as quality of the service, duration of shifts, workload, time pressures, and limited decision-making authority ( Patrick & Lavery, 2007 ; Shimizutani et al., 2008 ; Vioulac et al., 2016 ). In particular, environments evoking a sense of death (e.g., operating rooms) is another factor known to elevate perceived stress ( Ashker, Penprase, & Salman, 2012 ). High stress may lead to negative consequences such as reduced problem-solving abilities ( Zhao, Lei, He, Gu, & Li, 2015 ). Both having a long nursing career and working in stressful environments such as operating rooms may negatively affect empathy and problem-solving skills. However, this study revealed that working for a long period at the current hospital had no influence on problem-solving skills. The low reliability of the scales means that the variance may be high in other samples that are drawn from the same main sample, with the resultant data thus not reflecting the truth.

Low reliability coefficients reduce the significance and value of the results obtained by increasing the standard error of the data ( Şencan, 2005 ). The Cronbach's α of the EE scale used in the study was between .60 and .80 and is highly trustworthy. However, the Cronbach's α value is close to .60 (i.e., .649). This result may elicit suspicion in regression analysis estimates that are done to determine the variables that affect EE. In the correlation analysis, a statistically significant weak correlation was found only between the LSC subdimension and CE. However, the fact that the subscales of empathy and problem-solving skills are significantly related to the regression models may also be related to the reliability levels of the scales.

According to the results of the regression analysis, all of the variables remaining in Model A affected level of low for the CE ( R 2 = .299). Having constructive problem-solving skills ( p = .006), having a high level of education ( p < .001), and working for the current hospital for over 20 years ( p = .004) were found to be significantly related to CE.

Other variables were found to have no significant effect. According to the results of the regression analysis, all of the remaining variables in Model B accounted for a relatively low portion of the EE ( R 2 = .153). When the t test results for the significance of the regression coefficients were examined, it was determined that PA ( p = .021) and educational status ( p = .015) were significant predictors of EE. Other variables had no significant effect ( Table 5 ). The increase in the level of education of nurses may have increased their cognitive and emotional development. Thus, working in the same hospital for over 20 years was found to increase the levels of CE and EE. This result may be because of greater professional experience and regular experience handling numerous, different problems. In addition, the low explanatory power of the models may also be because of the fact that many other arguments that may affect empathy were not modeled. When constant values are fixed and the value of the independent variables entering the regression formula is zero, constant value is the estimated value of the dependent variable. According to findings of this study, sociodemographic characteristics and problem-solving abilities did not affect empathy level, although the CE value was 31.707 and the EE value was 37.024. Repeating this research in larger and different nurse groups may be useful to verify these research results.

Conclusions

The following results were derived from this study: First, constructive problem-solving skills affect CE skills. EE is adversely affected by the PA and LSC. Second, no correlation was found between the demographic characteristics of nurses and their problem-solving skills. Third, as level of education increases, cognitive and emotional levels of empathy decrease.

Duration of time spent working at one's current healthcare institution and educational level were both found to correlate negatively with the CE score. The higher the educational level and PA and the lower the self-confidence of the participants, the lower their EE levels. Finally, higher constructive problem-solving scores were associated with higher CE skills.

Limitations

The major limitation of the study is that it was conducted in the affiliated hospitals of one healthcare organization. The study data were obtained from operating room nurses who currently worked in these hospitals and who volunteered to participate. The conditions of nurses who did not participate in the study cannot be ascertained. A second important limitation is that the data reflect the subjective perceptions and statements of the participants. A third important limitation is that participant characteristics such as trust in management, trust in the institution, burnout, and communication skills were not assessed. For this reason, the effects of these variables on problem-solving and empathy skills remain unknown.

Author Contributions

Study conception and design: SP

Data collection: TK

Data analysis and interpretation: FA, SP

Drafting of the article: FA

Critical revision of the article: FA

Cited Here |
Google Scholar

operating room; critical thinking; surgery; cognitive; emotional

+ Favorites
View in Gallery

Readers Of this Article Also Read

Effectiveness of a patient safety incident disclosure education program: a..., the relationship between critical thinking skills and learning styles and....

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Relationship Between the Problem-Solving Skills and Empathy Skills of Operating Room Nurses

Affiliations.

1 PhD, RN, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Midwifery, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Turkey.
2 PhD, RN, Directorate of Nursing Services, Hospital of Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Turkey.
3 MS, RN, Director, Operating Room, Hospital of Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Turkey.
PMID: 31856024
DOI: 10.1097/jnr.0000000000000357

Background: The use of empathy in problem solving and communication is a focus of nursing practice and is of great significance in raising the quality of patient care.

Purpose: The purposes of this study are to investigate the relationship between problem solving and empathy among operating room nurses and to explore the factors that relate to these two competencies.

Methods: This is a cross-sectional, descriptive study. Study data were gathered using a personal information form, the Interpersonal Problem Solving Inventory, and the Basic Empathy Scale (N = 80). Descriptive and comparative statistics were employed to evaluate the study data.

Results: Age, marital status, and career length were not found to affect the subscale scores of cognitive empathy (p > .05). A negative correlation was found between the subscale scores for "diffidence" and "cognitive empathy." Moreover, the emotional empathy scores of the graduate nurses were higher than those of the master's/doctorate degree nurses to a degree that approached significance (p = .078). Furthermore, emotional empathy levels were found to decrease as the scores for insistent/persistent approach, lack of self-confidence, and educational level increased (p < .05). The descriptive characteristics of the participating nurses were found not to affect their problem-solving skills.

Conclusions/implications for practice: Problem solving is a focus of nursing practice and of great importance for raising the quality of patient care. Constructive problem-solving skills affect cognitive empathy skills. Educational level and career length were found to relate negatively and level of self-confidence was found to relate positively with level of cognitive empathy. Finally, lower empathy scores were associated with difficult working conditions in operating rooms, intense stress, and high levels of potential stress-driven conflicts between workers in work settings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

Ovid Technologies, Inc.
Wolters Kluwer

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

How to Empathize: Resist Being a Problem Solver

When someone comes for help, don’t hand out a to do list.

Posted April 30, 2018

Human beings. What are we going to do with ourselves? We are born fixers. And I mean literally, born , as in since the dawn of time. When there were cracks in those cave walls, you can be sure we were there with our primitive spackling tools to patch them right up. Well, OK, home improvement was not quite the priority on the honey-do list, what with the more immediate issues—predatory birds, lions, poisonous snakes, the occasional out of hand neighbor. The kinds of things we had to fix back in the day were life and death. And thus it was in that milieu of danger at every turn that our inner alarm system—our fight-or-flight responsiveness to threat—developed. So while we have the amygdala, the C.O.O. of the brain’s alarm system, to thank for bringing us to this day there’s a bit more she wrote. Sensitivity (reading the fine print of a situation) is not the amygdala’s strong suit. So when we find ourselves feeling threatened not by a large bird with claws, but none other than our adult daughter standing before us upset about a non-large bird issue like, maybe, just for the sake of argument…having a stressful situation at work, it’s the amygdala showing up first that instantly makes us feel like our child’s distress is a fire to put out. In those moments that call for empathy, compassion and soothing, the amygdala shouting fire! is more of the problem than the solution.

I know this well. As an anxiety therapist, I speak to patients all day about ways to override and reset the amygdala when the proverbial snake turns out to be a harmless stick. And though I try to live by what I teach, there are those moments where my blindspots are pointed out to me. Like by my daughter and the aforementioned situation at her job, right away I picked up my spackler and got to work. I jumped in with all the different ways my daughter might look at the situation, all the different things she could do to make it better. In fact, I had so much to say about her situation, I’m not sure she could get a word in edgewise. What she wanted, in her words, was empathy, period , and I handed her a to do list. Gotcha.

Whether we are talking to our children, our coworkers, our partners, even ourselves, I think my daughter hit the nail on the head. When we are upset we want empathy, period . Not the laundry list of things we need, could, or should do. Not yet, and maybe not ever. At the very least we need to pause and listen, the longer the better, before we ask if those spackling tools that our primitive instincts are tapping behind our backs are actually being requested.

marekullasz/iStock, used with permission

How do we do this? How do we tell our amygdalas to send the fire trucks back to the station? How do we turn off our revving engines running circles around an unsuspecting troubled person who has come to us for comfort, but is getting more upset by our (even with a Ph.D. in psychology) bungled response? What’s really the fire? We need to take charge of our own discomfort with someone else’s discomfort and realize our desire to solve things or to make invisible the things we can’t solve is…. drumroll please… our own problem—not the other person’s. The person who is in need of soothing was not in emergency mode until they were inundated with our to-do list for them. Not exactly what we were going for. If we as helpers can punch in the security code of our own amygdalas, do an override, take a breath, and remind ourselves that what is needed from us is not the brave slaying of dragons and such, but sometimes the braver offering of compassionate words or simply saying “yes—that sounds hard,” or “I’m sorry that’s happening,” or EVEN: “Tell me more about it” (because our to do list essentially conveys: tell me less ) we will be a different kind of hero. We are protecting ourselves and each other from our desire to fix and in so doing, will find a place where understanding ripples out and smooths the way for all of us.

And when each of us forgets about this idea, which we inevitably will given our jumpy amygdalas, let’s just agree to turn to each other and say, “Empathy, period , please!” Or… if you prefer… “Hold the spackler, please.” Namaste.

Tamar Chansky, Ph.D. is author of Freeing Yourself from Anxiety: 4 Simple Steps to Overcome Worry and Create the Life You Want and Freeing Your Child from Anxiety.

Tamar Chansky, Ph.D., is a psychologist dedicated to helping children, teens, and adults overcome anxiety.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

HOME - open only this page - put into left frame

Empathy in problem solving , for projects and relationships.

Understanding other people, by thinking with empathy, is almost always essential for skillful design thinking, for solving problems. You use design thinking (with empathy) for almost everything in life , so empathy can help you achieve a wide variety of objectives, in design projects and in relationships as described in an overview of using empathy in Design-Thinking Process by asking empathy questions — "What do THEY want?" and "What do I want?" and, combining these, "What do WE want?" — while you're trying to achieve win-win results.

In the following sections about empathy, later we'll explore the similarities between Empathy (to understand others) & Metacognition (to understand self) and will examine the Empathy-Ecology of a Classroom .

But we'll begin by asking...

What is empathy?

It's useful to think about — and think with, * and cultivate in yourself & others — different kinds of empathy : Cognitive Empathy by cognitively understanding the feeling-and-thinking and behaviors of another person; Emotional Empathy (aka Affective Empathy ) by feeling what another person feels; Compassionate Empathy (aka Compassion or Empathic Concern or Compassionate Concern ) is a desire for the well-being of another person.

For most purposes, including education, it seems more useful to think about 2 kinds of empathy (Cognitive & Emotional) instead of 3, and to focus on the Cognitive Empathy that I think is more learn-able and generally is more beneficially useful for problem solving, for making things better. * Why 2, not 3? Instead of Compassionate Empathy, I prefer the term Empathic Concern because it places attention on the compassionate Concern (the Compassion ) that is produced by Cognitive Empathy (perhaps combined with Emotional Empathy ) and is motivated by Kindness . / * There is wide variation in the terms used, and their definitions; a comprehensive Literature Review about Empathy Training includes a recognition that "there are as many researchers acknowledging discrepancies in the use of the term, as there are inconsistent definitions." many definitions of empathy(s)

also - How wide is the scope of "others"? In addition to other humans, we also can have empathy for animals — such as a monkey or dolphin, dog or cat, parrot or lizard — although the accuracy of our empathy is limited by significant differences between us and them in our experiences of thinking & feeling, and our difficulties in communicating with them.

* Do we "think with" empathy? Both kinds of empathy, cognitive and emotional, are important. But this is a website about thinking that is productive for problem solving, so I'll be saying more about Cognitive Empathy, which is the ability to understand what another person is thinking-and-feeling.

Developing and Using a Growth Mindset for

Improving emotional-and-social intelligence.

As part of a whole-person education for ideas-and-skills & more a teacher can help students learn how to more effectively use both kinds of empathy, by improving their Cognitive Empathies and Emotional Empathies, and their skills in being aware (cognitively and emotionally) of the thinking & feeling of others in a wide variety of life-situations, and also (with metacognitive self-empathy ) of themselves. These essential components of Emotional Intelligence* are closely related to Social Intelligence. Students can improve all of their multiple intelligences (including emotional-and-social) when they develop-and-use a growth mindset by believing that their abilities are not fixed at the current levels, instead each ability can become better, can be “grown” when they invest intelligent effort to improve this kind of ability.

* Psychology Today describes Emotional Intelligence as "the ability to identify and manage one’s own emotions, as well as the emotions of others. Emotional intelligence is generally said to include at least three skills: emotional awareness, or the ability to identify and name one's own emotions [by using self-empathy, and by using empathy to "identify and name" another person's emotions]; the ability to harness those emotions and apply them to tasks like thinking and [to "make things better" in ways that include improved relationships] problem solving; and the ability to manage emotions, which includes both regulating one's own emotions when necessary, and helping others to do the same." { em phasis and [comments] added by me}

Two closely related abilities – Social Intelligence and Emotional Intelligence – are combined in educational programs * to improve the Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) that is briefly defined by ca sel .org — "social and emotional learning (SEL) is the process through which children and adults understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions" — in the introduction for What is SEL? { * and people improve these skills informally by learning from their life-experiences }

As part of a school's Social-Emotional Learning to improve Social Intelligence and Emotional Intelligence , teachers can help students improve their Cognitive Empathy & Emotional Empathy and their Empathic Concern and Compassionate Action.

Compassion in Action: A process that produces compassionate action occurs in a sequence: cognitive empathy and/or emotional empathy, plus kindness, may produce empathic concern for a person, which may produce a desire to help them, and then action to help them. / The whole process can occur quickly, as with emergency action, or during a long period of time. Or action may not occur at all, if the sequence is broken at any point.

Compassion in Design: A process of design may lead to Compassionate Action if, for any area of life, * Empathic Concern is a motivating-and-guiding factor when you Define a Problem by Choosing an Objective and Defining Goal-Criteria. { * compassionate action can be motivated by empathic concern in traditional design projects and in relationships }

Is empathy always useful? In most design projects – even when you are not motivated mainly by compassion – it's very useful to think with empathy . { why do I say "most" projects, instead of “all”? } And self-empathy , to understand yourself, is useful when your objective is a personal decision or a personal thinking strategy . {more about empathy and self-empathy }

Human-Centered Design: Because "empathy is the foundation of a human-centered design process," d.school (of Stanford) emphasizes the importance of a mode for Empathy by including it (when you search for "empath") in 19 of its 47 pages. And one of their mindsets for design-thinking is to Focus on Human Values. { Empathy in Design Thinking with d.school and DEEPdt} { designing with empathy and self-empathy }

Accuracy in Empathy

Do you have an accurate understanding of people? If you are surprised by a behavior — because your Observations (of how a person responds, in what they do or say) don't match your Predictions (your expectations) — something is wrong with your empathetic understanding of the way other people are thinking & feeling, of how they will respond in this situation. Why?

When you do a Reality Check by comparing Predictions with Observations, a mis-match can occur due to...

your inadequate Observations in the past, or your incorrect interpretations of these Observations when you constructed an explanatory Theory/Model (used to make Predictions ) for this aspect of human feeling/thinking-and-behaving, in one of the areas (re: psychology, sociology, economics, marketing, politics,...) studied by Social Sciences. Or maybe the other person(s) responded in an unusual way, not consistent with their previous feeling & thinking & actions.

view only this page - put into left frame

Empathy in design projects.

In all phases of a traditional Design Project — especially in Modes 1A and 1B when you Choose an Objective and Define Desired Goal-Properties for a product (or activity, strategy, theory) — it's important to think with empathy. This is important for your Solution-Users and for those (you and maybe others) who are Solution-Designers.

Empathy for Solution-Users: You learn about the thinking-and-behavior of potential users of a product by getting observations — old (already known by yourself or others) or new (from your own new studies) from customer interviews, focus groups, market surveys,... — that help you understand, with better insights into “how will they use the product? what do they need? and want?” Ask users for feedback (positive & negative), for constructive criticism and suggestions. By creatively imagining what it's like to “be a user and think like a user” from their perspective, make predictions. * Also try to “think like a buyer” or (in another aspect of the project) to “think like a seller.” These information-gathering activities will help you supplement your internal egocentric thinking with externally-oriented empathetic thinking for all stake - holders in a project, for everyone who will be involved in (or affected by) the project in any way, who will design, make, market, distribute, sell, buy, use, or service the product, or be involved or affected in other ways.

* Predictive Empathy: Usually you'll try to "think like a buyer/user" in their future, which may differ from their thinking in the present. For example, Helen Walters describes the "approach to customer research [of Steve Jobs, who said] ‘It isn't the consumers' job to know what they want.’ Jobs is comfortable hanging out in the world of the unknown, and this confidence allows him to take risks and make intuitive bets" by using empathy-based predictions of what buyers/users will want later, even if they don't yet want it now.

Relevant Empathy: You can never fully understand another person. Usually your main goal is relevant empathy, by trying to understand what is most important for a particular situation. If you're designing a product, for example, you'll want to understand the thinking & feeling, the needing and wanting, of people who would use (or might buy) the product, in the context of their using the product and/or b uying it. And for a relationship-situation, usually you focus on understanding what is most relevant in the context of that situation.

Empathy for Solution-Designers: During a design project you'll want to develop empathy for solution-users (those you are serving), as described above . And when you're co-designing as part of a group, you'll want to develop empathy for the other solution-designers in your team, to make your process of cooperative problem-solving more enjoyable and productive. If members of a group improve their use of “collaborative empathy” this will improve their interactions, and will help them develop a cooperative community for creative collaboration . This can occur in many contexts, including schools where better educational teamwork (by everyone involved in education ) will make the process more enjoyable for teachers, and more effective for students by increasing positives (in learning, performing, enjoying ) and decreasing negatives (like jealous attitudes & bullying behaviors). { building empathy-ecology in a classroom }

Traditional and Relational: Empathy is useful whenever you want to solve a problem by “making it better” with a traditional design project ( above ) — when you use empathy to produce a better solution (for your solution-users ) and a better process (if you're working in a team of solution-producers ) — and/or a relational design project (below) when your objective is to improve an interpersonal relationship.

Empathy in relationships .

An Important Objective: Originally I defined four general categories for problem-solving objectives – for when we decide to design a better product, strategy, activity, and/or theory. Later I added relationships because our most important problems (our opportunities to make things better ) usually involve people, so improved relationships are among the most important objectives we can choose to improve. How? An essential foundation is developing...

Empathy and Self-Empathy to improve Two Understandings: You can build a solid foundation for improving your relationships by improving two kinds of understandings (external and internal) with externally-oriented empathetic skills – to develop empathy (overall and also situation-specific relevant empathy ) based on external observations, trying to understand what others are feeling & thinking – and internally-oriented metacognitive skills (to develop self-empathy based on internal observations, trying to understand what you are feeling & thinking). The practical value of these life-skills is a reason to define...

Educational Goals for Relationship Skills: We can aim for whole-person education that will help students improve personally useful ideas & skills and more in their whole lives as whole people. Our educational goals should include the important life-skill of building better relationships, with empathy & kindness and in other ways. A very useful general strategy — for educating students (and yourself) in all of the multiple intelligences, including social-emotional intelligences — is to develop & consistently use a growth mindset .

Kindness plus Empathy: When you want to be kind — and you combine your kindness with empathy — this will help you...

Choose a Win-Win Goal: In many common life-situations, when you are trying to "make things better" your two understandings (external for others, and internal for self) are combined when you ask — while you are defining your goals — “what do they want?” (using empathy to understand others ) and (using self-empathy to understand yourself ) “what do I want?” and (if you choose to define your goal as an optimal win-win result ) “what do we want?” / You also make choices when you...

Define the Scope of Your Win-Win Goals: How broadly do you define "they" when you're trying to achieve win-win results? If you want to decrease the unfortunate tendency of positive teamwork to become negative tribalism, one strategy is for you (and those you influence) to increase your...

Understanding and Respect: One of the many ways we can improve relationships is to develop better teamwork . But one strategy for developing strong relationships among insiders (within a team) — by promoting hostile “us against them” attitudes toward outsiders (not in the team) — can convert positive teamwork into negative tribalism. { I'm calling it negative tribalism because tribe-like strong loyalties produce some positive effects and some negative effects. } One kind of educational activity that can help reduce the negative aspects of tribalism is examined in a page describing how my favorite high school teacher, by using informative debates in his civics class, helped us develop Accurate Understandings and Respectful Attitudes . How? After he helped us carefully-and-diligently study an issue, so our understandings of different position-perspectives were more accurate and thorough, usually we recognized that even when we have justifiable reasons to prefer one position, * people on other sides of an issue may also have justifiable reasons, both intellectual and ethical, for believing as they do, so we learned respectful attitudes. { * yes, he wanted us to find "justifiable reasons" because his educational goal was not a logically-fuzzy postmodern relativism , instead he promoted a logically appropriate humility with confidence that is not too little and not too much.} When this kind of educational process is done well, it can produce a foundation of empathetic understanding that is useful for producing authentic understanding & respect, that helps us be more kind in our feeling & thinking & actions.

Empathy without Kindness: This can be a bad combination, when it allows the use of empathetic thinking as a tool for manipulating others in harmful ways.

Empathy plus Kindness: This is a good combination, when empathy (a useful skill) is accompanied by kindness (an essential aspect of good character). Thinking with empathy is beneficial for other people when it's combined with kindness-and-caring in feeling & thinking & actions, when an attitude of caring for others (in feeling & thinking) leads to caring for others (in actions), with actions motivated by kindness, by genuinely caring for other people.

Kindness in Thinking-and-Actions: More people will have better lives... if more of us are more often motivated by kindness, with goals of trying to “make things better” for other people, wanting to affect their lives in ways that are beneficial for them, that make life better for them; and if our empathy-based compassionate concerns were more often actualized with kindness in our actions.

A Wonderful Life produces Beneficial Effects: A creative illustration of helping others is my favorite movie, It's a Wonderful Life. I like it partly for its artistry (in plot, dialogue, acting, directing, photography) but mainly for the message: each of us affects other people – as dramatized in the end-of-movie comparison of lives with & without George Bailey – and our own life is better when we affect others in ways that make their lives better, and help them achieve worthy goals in life. We can help others enjoy what they do, and (when they “pass it on”) do more actions that benefit others, and more fully develop their whole-person potentials.

Helping Others achieve Their Goals: For understanding how we can be more beneficial — by helping another person "enjoy..." and "more fully develop their whole-person potentials" so they are becoming a better version of themself, growing into the kind of “ideal person” they want to be, or they should be — a useful perspective is the Michelangelo Phenomenon; this concept was developed by social psychologists, with Caryl Rusbult ( my wonderful sister ) being a main developer. As described in a review article by Rusbult, Finkel, & Kumashiro: "close partners sculpt one another's selves, shaping one another's skills and traits [analogous to Michelangelo's Actions while shaping a piece of stone so it becomes a beautiful work of art] and promoting versus inhibiting one another's goal pursuits... of attaining his or her ideal-self goals" in the "dreams and aspirations, or the constellation of skills, traits, and resources that an individual ideally wishes to acquire." When lovingly influential Michelangelo Actions are done well, the beneficial effects usually are lovingly appreciated, as we see in "Love" by Roy Croft: "I love you, not only for what you have made of yourself, but for what you are making of me." Or in the language of education, when feedback-actions help another person improve, this is formative feedback that helps them “form themselves” into a better person. Of course, a beneficial shaping influence — a teaching influence that helps them develop a growth mindset about improving their skills with social-emotional intelligences and relational empathy — can come from a "close partner" and also others, including friends and family, counselors, fellow students & team members & co-workers, and teachers & coaches & supervisors.

Golden Rule with Empathy: For building mutually beneficial relationships, one useful principle-for-life is a Golden Rule with Empathy that combines kindness with empathy, by treating others in ways THEY want to be treated, which may differ from what you would want. * Treating others this way will be beneficial for them, and also for you (especially in the long run), in a wide variety of situations. / * But it doesn't really "differ from what you would want," if we look more deeply. Why? You want others to empathetically understand you, and then treat you the way you want to be treated. Other people also want this, so you should Seek First to Understand (with Habit 5 in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People ) and then use a Golden Rule , e.g. "Do for others what you want them to do for you" by treating them the way THEY want to be treated.

Empathy for Society: I.O.U. – This paragraph might be written before mid-2023, with ideas from John Rawls: imagine you are part of a group in Original Position (before you're born) that is designing a society with the goal of making life optimal for all, and you are self-interested in "all" because – with a Veil of Ignorance – you don't know “who you will be” when you are born, re: your multiple intelligences, looks, race, health, wealth, status, location,... ; in reality we cannot be “ignorant of our situation” now, during life as it really is, but we can use empathy + kindness/compassion in our thinking about society. {for more, an article by Richard Beck, Empathy, the Veil of Ignorance, and Justice }

Clever and Kind: Abraham Heschel, sharing an insightful observation based on self-empathy, wisely said "When I was young, I admired clever people. Now that I am old, I admire kind people." Teachers can help students, while they are still young, appreciate the value of being truly clever (with skills in creative-and-critical productive thinking to solve problems to make things better) and also kind.

Empathy and Metacognition

These related ways of thinking – helping you understand others , and understand yourself – are very useful in all areas of life, including education. This section — first in Goals & Perspectives, then in RESULTS and PROCESS , and Using Empathetic Feedback in a Classroom — will examine ideas & strategies that can help a teacher and students develop better empathy-ecology in their classroom .

Goals & Perspectives

Empathy and Metacognition have similar goals (to understand thinking & feeling) but different orientation-perspectives, re: external and internal.

• With empathy you try to understand the thinking & feeling of others, who are external to you. { two empathies and a result : cognitive empathy (used "to understand" thinking & feeling) plus emotional empathy (to feel) can produce empathic concern. } • With metacognition ( self-empathy ) you try to understand your own internal thinking (& feeling). { In its basic definition, with metacognition you "think about your thinking. " But in practice, thinking and feeling are related, often with strong mutual influences. Therefore, typically it's useful to “think about your thinking AND feeling . ” }

External & Internal, for You and Others:

everyone – you and others – thinks with externally-oriented empathy, to understand the thinking & feeling of other people; everyone – you and others – thinks with internally-oriented metacognition, to understand your own thinking & feeling.

The external & internal understandings constructed by you are summarized in the 1st & 2nd rows-of-cells in this table.

The 3rd & 4th cell-rows describe the external & internal understandings constructed by another person .

	and )
by you, for ANOTHER PERSON, is	external understanding of , of
by you, for YOURSELF, aka is	internal understanding of , of
by another person, for YOU, is	understanding of , of
by another person, for THEMSELF, is	understanding of , of

Metacognition and Self-Empathy: These terms have the same meaning, in this page. More generally, when these terms are used by others, typically with metacognition the emphasis is more heavily on thinking, and with self-empathy it's on feeling (but also thinking).

other terms: a metacognitive understanding is aka personal metacognitive knowledge that is one aspect of a person's overall general-and-personal metacognitive knowledge . By analogy, empathetic understanding also can be called empathetic knowledge, although the term metacognitive knowledge is used much more often.

RESULTS — Perspectives and Understandings

By comparing understandings of YOU in the 2nd & 3rd cell-rows, or of THEM in the 1st & 4th rows, you can see how understandings ( of YOU , or of THEM ) depend on point-of-view perspectives (on whether the constructing is done by you , or by them ).

two pov-perspectives on YOU, in rows 2 & 3: You use internal metacognition (self-empathy) to construct your understanding of YOUR thinking & feeling. And another person uses external empathy to construct their understanding of YOUR thinking & feeling. It can be interesting to compare these two understandings, asking “How do I view me? How do they view me?” and “What are the similarities? and differences?” and “Why do the differences occur?” and “Which understanding is more accurate ? and in what ways?”

three pov-perspectives on ANOTHER PERSON, in rows 1 & 4 & _: You also can make comparisons and ask questions (about similarities & differences, and accuracy), re: understandings of ANOTHER PERSON – “How do I view THEM ? How does this person view THEMSELF ? And, not shown in the table, how do other people view THEM ?”

When we compare empathy (to understand others) with metacognition (to understand self), we see many similarities and analogous relationships in the PROCESS used (below) and (above) the RESULT produced .

PROCESS — constructing Empathy & Metacognition

Now we'll shift attention from RESULTS to PROCESS.

We construct our understandings (of others & self) in a social context, so it's useful to distinguish between...

Understanding and Feedback: We construct (i.e. we develop) feedback in a two-step process. First we use empathy or metacognition to construct understanding that we use, after evaluative filtering, to provide feedback for others, with communication. { Understanding and Feedback, Part 2 }

You construct your external EMPATHY (it's your understanding of ANOTHER PERSON ) when you internally interpret all of the evidence you find. You can use three kinds of evidence: your observations of the person ; feedback about the person from other people; feedback about self from the person.

You construct your internal SELF-EMPATHY (to get your understanding of YOURSELF ) when you internally interpret all of the evidence you find. You can use two kinds of evidence: your observations of yourself ; and feedback about you from others.

{an option: If the table below is too wide for easy reading in your browser window, you can temporarily view this page in a new full-width window . }

The first 4 rows in the tables above (for RESULTS) and below (for PROCESS) are matched, re: who is trying to understand WHO . Below,

The 1st and 2nd rows summarize-and-organize the processes you use to construct your understandings of ANOTHER and YOURSELF . The 3rd and 4th rows describe how, using the same processes, another person constructs their other-understanding of YOU , and their self-understanding of THEMSELF . The 5th row shows how they construct their other-understanding of ANOTHER PERSON, of someone who isn't YOU or THEM, and thus is a THIRD PERSON .


, trying to , is	, using found-evidence that is empathetic of-person , empathetic about-person , metacognitive about-person ,	about ]
, trying to , is	, using found-evidence that is metacognitive of-self , empathetic about-you ,	of ]
, trying to , is	, using found-evidence that is empathetic of-you , metacognitive about-yourself , empathetic about-you ,	about ]
, trying to , is	, using found-evidence that is metacognitive of-self , empathetic about-them that can include about-them ,	of ]
, trying to , is	, using found-evidence that is empathetic of-third , metacognitive about-third , empathetic about-third that can include about-third ,	about a ]

Did you notice that the 3rd & 5th rows are analogous but with one difference? (what is it? the 5th-row process can include one extra evidence that is "feedback-about-third from you")

Understanding and Feedback — These are related, but different. They occur in sequence:

1. First you use empathy and observations-of-performance, trying to get accurate understandings of another person(s), and of their performance(s). 2. Then if you want to provide helpful feedback, * you will wisely filter your understandings by not saying everything you are thinking, but only what will be helpful. You do this by deciding, for each person or group, what to say (and not say), when and how, or whether to say nothing. The goal is to be helpful by providing formative feedback with an intention, and hopefully a result, of being kind and beneficial . / * Unfortunately, sometimes (if a person doesn't want to be kind-and-beneficial) the feedback is intended to be un-helpful. 1-during-2: An empathetic understanding (developed in Step 1) is used (in Step 2) during the process of filtering, when you're deciding the details (the what/when/how-and-whether) of providing feedback that will be helpful.

MORE - Other useful strategies for providing helpful feedback are in two places: Developing a Creative (and critical) Community by trying to minimize any "harshness" in feedback-providing and feedback-receiving; Evaluation is Argumentation that in a group requires "the social skills of communication" when you combine Evaluative Thinking with a Persuasion Strategy and Communication Skills, along with productive Attitudes while Arguing.

Using Empathetic Feedback in a Classroom

The three * s — above in the table-for-process and below in descriptions of each * — are three kinds of "feedback... from you ." Imagine that you are a teacher , and two of your students are Sue (" a person ", aka " them ") and John (" a third person ", aka " third ").

How will you use these 3 kinds of empathy-based feedbacks? If you're an effective teacher, then (in cell-Rows 4, 5, and 3)...

* You want to provide feedback that will help Sue construct a better self-understanding of HERSELF . (This is her SELF-EMPATHY, aka her METACOGNITION, in Row 4.) / a new term: Sue's own internal METACOGNITION (by "thinking about Sue's thinking) is being supplemented by your feedback-to-her about her, which is aka external metacognition because it's the "thinking about Sue's thinking" that is externally supplied by you, as an empathetic observer. * You want to provide feedback that will help Sue (and other students) construct a better other-understanding of JOHN . (This is her EMPATHY for A THIRD PERSON in Row 5.) / You can provide feedback-to-others about all of your students, individually and collectively, to influence each student's other-understandings of their fellow students, and attitudes toward them. * You want to provide feedback that will help Sue construct a better other-understanding of YOU . (This is her EMPATHY for YOU in Row 3.)

With a particular feedback, you want to help a student understand themself (Row 4), or another student (Row 5), or you (Row 3).

Building an Ecology of Empathy in a Classroom

All of these * -feedbacks are one part of the complex personal interactions (simplistically symbolized in the diagram) that occur in every classroom. In this context, "better self-understanding" and "better other-understanding" will help all of you — Teacher , Student (like Sue or John), and students (in the whole class, or in smaller groups) — develop a better ecology of empathy in your classroom.

In the interactions-diagram, arrows indicate a variety of interactions, including communications that are verbal (with * -feedbacks and in other ways) and non-verbal:

two arrows point away from the Teacher (you) who can communicate with only one Student (like Sue) or with two or more students . two arrows point away from the Student (Sue) who can communicate with you , or with one or more other students . two arrows point away from students (John & others) who can communicate with you , or with any other Student (s). {note: A complex diagram that is more-complete would show more kinds of interactions between students, as individuals and in groups.}

A skilled teacher will provide guidance for students in how to " wisely filter " their communications (using feedback and in other ways) with the teacher and each other, so their interactions will be helpful. A wise evaluating-and-filtering should be based on a foundation of healthy interpersonal motivations, with each student wanting to be kind, wanting to affect others in beneficial ways.

Shared Goals and Individual Goals: In ideal educational teamwork the teacher and all students will have shared educational goals of “greatest good for the greatest number” with optimal learning-performing-enjoying for everyone in the classroom. But each student also will have their own personal goals that include wanting to improve their interpersonal relationships and personal education .

Habit 5 of Highly Effective People is "Seek first to understand, then to be understood. " As a teacher, you can use this habit/principle in (at least) two ways:

When you provide feedback , in Step 1 you try to understand Sue, as a foundation for Step 2 when you help her understand your view of her and what she is doing and how she can improve. {your feedback is one aspect of stimulating and guiding students} In the third * -feedback you try to understand Sue, so (with your * -feedback about yourself) you can help her understand you .

Building Empathy-Ecology for a Classroom

I.O.U. - Below are some ideas that eventually, maybe by mid-2019, will be developed more fully.

a humble disclaimer: This section is just ideas, and most of the ideas (maybe all of them) aren't really new. I'm just describing some goals of skilled teachers, and some strategies they already are using to effectively pursue their goals.

Important foundational ideas, essential for this section, are in other parts of the website:

• empathy-ecology performs a valuable function in a system of strategies for teaching by helping a teacher provide formative feedback that will help students improve their performing-enjoying-learning and their system of self-perceptions and...

more generally, will help guide our goal-directed designing of coordinated curriculum & instruction .

• definitions for empathy(s) & metacognition and their Process (of construction) & Result (in understanding) and their uses (by teacher & students) in developing a classroom ecology . / [[here are ideas that will be developed later: motivational teamwork for cooperation-collaboration in education, at all levels, including Teaching Strategies for students (re: how they influence the learning of other students, directly with peer teaching, and indirectly/unofficially); being motivated, as on a sports team, to establish an education-culture for better learning/performing/enjoying; a HMW for students, in activity where they ask "How Might We" design our own ideal culture/environment for optimal learning, to pursue a “greatest good for the greatest number of students” and for the teacher.]]

strategies for thinking (in a wide variety of contexts ) by learning from experience , and...

related strategies for teaching .

based on their understanding of personal motivation teachers can use motivational persuasion to help students recognize that school experiences (when they're well designed) can help them learn for life so they will want to adopt a problem-solving approach (to "make it better" in their life) for their own personal education . When students are personally motivated to learn, it will be much easier for teachers & students to build educational teamwork in a classroom and a school.

Educational Ecologies (in Educational Ecosystems) occur at many levels, in large-scale systems — in a nation, state, district, school, department — and , on a smaller scale,

in a classroom with its ecosystem of interactions between each Student and other students and the Teacher , as shown simplistically in this diagram, to produce 6 kinds of formative feedback — from one person (or group ) to another — based on empathetic understandings of what others are feeling & thinking in their hearts & minds. Each person also tries to understand, with metacognitive self-empathy, their own feeling & thinking, their own life-goals and life-strategies, for what they want (in their goals ) and how to get it (with their strategies ). { a process of developing classroom ecology should be based on a foundation of kind attitudes and compassionate intentions to be benefically helpful}

Ideally, the shared goal when building empathy-ecology in a classroom will be improving the total school experience to produce an optimal performing-enjoying-learning overall, with “greatest good for the greatest number” but also respect for all individuals. For each student, and the teacher(s), the shared mutual objective is to build educational teamwork that will be helpful in achieving individual goals, and group goals. All can work together in creative collaboration to construct a classroom community with a learning-friendly atmosphere, so students can learn in the ways they want to learn and are able to learn.

I.O.U. reminder - Soon, maybe in mid-2023, these ideas (and related ideas) "will be developed more fully," including my exploration of what others are doing — in principle and in applications — with different aspects of educational ecology.

Is empathy always needed?

This section responds to a question: Is thinking-with-empathy useful in ALL design projects?

A high quality of thinking with empathy (so your understanding is relevant, accurate, and deep) is extremely important for defining and solving most problems. But not all problems, because empathy is not very important (or at least it's different) for problem-solving objectives in two categories, when your problem either (1) involves mainly you, or (2) does not directly involve any people, when...

1) ...when you want to “make life better” by achieving an objective that is mainly for your own benefit, not for other people, * and you do most of the problem solving (or all of it) by yourself. This focus-on-self occurs for some personal decisions and for many of your thinking strategies . To do each of these well, you need to know yourself, with self-empathy for your own thinking & feeling . You can use the benefits of different perspectives by supplementing your own understanding (from internal self-observation & self-empathy by yourself) with other understandings (from external observations & empathy by other people). { perspectives - internal & external, metacognition & empathy }

* Even when a problem-solving project does not "directly involve people" (as in 2a below) or "...other people" (in 1 above), usually some people will be affected in some way, so typically we are describing an objective that requires less empathy, rather than no empathy.

2a) ...when the objective is mostly technical, so it does not directly involve people. This can occur because a wide variety of objectives (for designing a better object, activity, or strategy in General Design) require a wide variety of empathy, with less needed for a few objectives (those in 2a) than for most objectives. { IOU - Later, maybe in May, some of these variations-in-empathy will be examined in an appendix, as outlined in the final paragraph of this page.

2b) ...when your functional responsibility in a problem-solving process is to solve a purely technical problem, in a sub-project within the overall project. For example, you might be asked to design a new piece of equipment (or to repair it) after the technical goal-specifications already have been clearly defined by others in a part of the design project ( Defining a Problem ) that usually requires empathy. }

2c) ...when your objective in Science-Design is an explanatory theory about NON-HUMAN aspects of nature (as in chemistry, physics, or astronomy), not about HUMAN nature (as in psychology, sociology, political science, economics, marketing,...). { If you ask “is science-design authentic design?”, we can discuss the pros & cons of using definitions (for problem, design, design thinking,...) that are broad or narrow. }

Empathy for Collaboration: During any design project (including 1, 2a, 2b, 2c), if you're working collaboratively it's important to have empathy for your colleagues, so you can understand ( intellectually and emotionally ) what they are thinking & feeling, to help all of you work together more effectively and enjoyably.

I.O.U. - The ideas below are in gray text because they need to be developed and revised:

In this website, the importance of empathy is emphasized (as in mc-em.htm#empathy - ws.htm#dpmo1ab - ws.htm#dpmo2aem - ws.htm#mcts ) but some other models-for-process (like d.school and DEEPdt) emphasize it more strongly, as described here .

The fact that creative thinking is necessary to imagine projects requiring "no empathy (or very little)" shows that empathy is essential (or at least is extremely useful) for understanding-and-improving almost all problem-situations. — especially for "design projects" (which include almost everything we do in life) that are worthwhile.

maybe responses will be indicated by text-highlighting the objectives where empathy is extremely important and very important and not as important.

for a problem that only you can solve, analogous to solo mountain climbing when you are “on your own” so you must do everything by yourself.

A larger project is making a detailed appendix (maybe in May) by asking, for many objectives (across a wide range of objectives ), "How useful is thinking with empathy when you define a problem (by learning about a problem-situation, defining an objective, defining goals for a solution) and solve the problem (by designing a solution that satisfactorily achieves your goals)?"

If you want to discuss any of these ideas, you can contact me, <craigru178-att-yahoo-daut-caum> ; Craig Rusbult, Ph.D. - my life on a road less traveled

Copyright © 1978-2023 by craig rusbult. all rights reserved., this page is designed to be in the left frame, so put it there ., options: here are three other useful links, sitemap (in left frame ) - home (in right frame ) - open this frame in a new full-width window (i.o.u. - until this link is available, right-click frame and choose "open frame in new window - and useful information is in tips for using this website ..

Industrial Cleaning
Office Cleaning
School Cleaning
Medical Cleaning
Disinfecting Services
Office Disinfecting
Restroom Disinfecting
Industrial Disinfecting
Medical Disinfecting
Carpet Cleaning
Hard Surface Floor Care
Window Washing
Pressure Washing
Green Cleaning Benefits

Request a Quote

The Art of Empathetic Problem Solving

Empathetic problem solving is the ability to really understand and feel another’s perspective in a conflict or issue. Empathetic problem solving is about what you do in communication while solving a problem but also about what you don’t do .

What is deep listening? Deep listening is a way of listening where we are fully present without trying to immediately control or judge a situation. This can be hard for us leaders because we have so much responsibility and can be so accustomed to putting out fires. With deep listening, we do our best to stay in the moment and not jump ahead and define or solve the problem before we have more information. We also try to push away our preconceived notions about the situation or the people involved. For example, not letting our mind immediately go to fault finding when dealing with a problem employee. Or not assuming a customer that frequently complains is just blowing off steam. Rather we do our best to limit our assumptions and really tune in for precisely what someone is trying to tell us. Telling, on the other hand, is when we jump in and try to tell someone what happened before getting his or her perspective. When this happens, people tend to shut down and be resistant to solutions, even very good ones, because they don’t feel they were really heard.

Questioning is about asking questions to understand what happened so that you can arrive at a workable solution. The other side of the coin is blame. Blame is about figuring out ‘who did it.’ Your questions should be as neutral and judgment free as possible. For example, it is better to ask, “What happened between you and Bob?” than “Why were you shouting at Bob?” This kind of neutral questioning can get the information rather than shutting someone down because they feel your judgment. Real questioning should be about revealing obstacles and uncovering alternate paths ahead. Again, this can be challenging because quite often we probably know what happened and we can bring our own feelings of anger, frustration and disappointment to these conflicts.

With enhanced perspective, the most effective leaders are able to help an individual embrace a more open perspective of the situation or conflict they are imbued in. Enhancing perspective is akin to ‘see it how I see it’ but more subtle and done together rather than delivered straightaway. When you enhance someone’s perspective, you reframe the issue pointing out other perspectives and possibilities. You light the path and then allow someone to walk down it.

Inspiring someone to make the choice you want is always better than an autocratic power play. Whether its employees or children, gaining their agreement on what you want them to do always works better than making demands from up on high. While it may work with Nike, ‘Just Do It’ rarely works for long with people. Maybe they do something they don’t want to do because they want to please you. Perhaps in seeing your fairness and lack of blame placing, they are inspired to be more conciliatory with a difficult colleague.

Even though this kind of engaged problem solving really requires stamina and mindfulness from a leader, it also can gain us the respect and trust our people. They see how we work to be fair, really listen, value problem solving over blame placing. And when issues arise, and they will, they will trust us, come to us and try to work through an issue rather than resort to a CYA or worse.

Tags: Learn Everyday

Subscribe to Email Updates

Subscribe to us to get the latest updates on professional cleaning.

Skip to primary navigation
Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar

Vogl & Blake Research Consultants

Research Consultants

Are you solving the real problem? Why empathy matters.

December 15, 2021

By Dylan Hensby. UX Research & Design at Vogl and Blake Research Consultants.

Empathy is an important part of life. It’s how we understand and relate to one another. However, when it comes to businesses or large organisations, there is a risk that empathy can get left behind. It’s very common to assume that the problem is understood without seeing it from the user’s point of view. There is a long list of organisations that assumed they were solving a problem but when they went to sell their product or service, or help certain groups of people, they were met with failure.

This is why empathy matters. Empathy is the key for finding the real problem that lies at the heart of your user’s experience. It validates that your organisation is solving a problem that needs to be solved, and your solutions will ultimately improve or enrich their lives.

In this blog post we will take a look at two major signs of a lack of empathy, examples of companies who have made this mistake, and a few general tips to keep in mind when performing empathy-based research.

Two signs of a lack of empathy

relationship between empathy and problem solving

The first sign is that the solution is not solving a problem. Or at least a problem that matters to your target group. In 2019, CB Insights analysed 101 startups that failed, and found that 42% failed because there was no market needed for their product or service (CB Insights, 2019). These businesses were trying to solve a problem that didn’t need to be solved, or at least didn’t provide any financial benefit for doing so. This doesn’t apply to just startups. Every organisation, small and large, is vulnerable to making assumptions.

One great example is Google Glass. Google’s voice-controlled ‘smart’ sunglasses released to the public in 2014. There was a lot of initial excitement over the concept but once the novelty wore off people began to ask themselves why they would buy themselves a pair. How will these glasses make my life easier? Why should I buy a pair of $1500 sunglasses that can help me navigate when I can just use my phone? Google Glass didn’t solve a clear problem, and the sales reflected this with the product eventually failing.

How can I tell if my product/service is not solving the real problem? The biggest indicator is that it’s not meeting sales that it should be compared to the market. Solutions that solve a genuine problem are valuable, and the sales should reflect this. This is why Google Glass failed. They lost out to phones and other methods that solved the problem for the user more efficiently. Ask yourself what problem you are trying to solve, and if your offering is doing just that. Qualitative research can be valuable here to see the problem from your user’s perspective. Diary studies, user research, interviews, and ethnographic studies are all useful tools to validate that the problem your solving is a real problem.

The second sign is that the user cannot relate to or support your solution. Whereas the first sign is about not understanding the problem in the context of the users lives, this second sign is about not understanding the users or groups themselves.

Nowhere else can this be more clear than the tale of Juicero in 2017. Juicero was a juicer that pressed pre-made juice packs sold by the company at a subscription. The idea was that users could buy juice packs and let the juicer do the work, saving time in their busy schedule. Unfortunately, it failed, and there are many reasons why.

One reason was that it was over-designed, an extremely complex solution to a simple problem. Bloomberg News made a video showing that it was more effective to squish the premade packs using your hands.

But the one reason that concerns us is that they never really understood their target market. Most of their users could not afford the 700-dollar entry fee, let alone the subscription for the packs. If they had used an empathy-based approach with their research then they would have found that many people who are health-conscious are also conscious of their impact on the environment and the waste that the juice packs create. Juicero is an example of a company who couldn’t empathise with their customers.

How can you tell if your organisation is out of touch with your users? Firstly, how much research have you done? The more research you do regardless of the approach, will help with informing you about the user. But the easiest way you will know if you’re out of touch is through reviews. When your company solves a problem that people need solved, but in a way that disagrees with their values, or in a way they can’t support, then they will let you know about it. For example, if your favourite coffee place makes the best damn coffee, you’ve ever tasted, but they only sell it in a styrofoam cup, and caring for the environment is one of your core values, then this causes inner conflict. Do I care more about the coffee or about the environment? If the coffee is good enough to stick around then chances are you will let them know your concerns. Overall, an empathic approach to research will help with understanding your users values and allow you to offer a product/service that aligns with these values, rather than conflicts.

Our 3 general tips for taking an empathic approach

Understand the problem through your target group’s eyes.

This is the first step, and the most important. Immerse yourself in the problem but through the perspective of your target group/market. How does this problem affect their day to day lives? How are they currently solving the problem? How do we solve the problem, and are there any opportunities to solve this problem in a more convenient way?

Empathise with your target group or users.

Do your background research. Understand the context of this group of people’s lives. While every human being is unique, are there any common problems they face? Do they have certain preferences, or any common motivations between them? Uncover their values and offer a solution that aligns with them.

Be flexible to change.

As you learn more about your users and see the problem from their perspective, chances are that you will begin to see what was initially thought to be the problem was actually a symptom of a deeper problem. This is where being flexible is important, so you can adapt your aim to focus on the real issue. Users are also human beings, and like the rest of us, are susceptible to change . Keeping your research up to date is also important.

Overall, it’s about putting the group or user at the center of the process. Listen to them, understand them, and see the problem from their point of view. By doing it this way, you’ll be solving the real problem.

CB Insights. “The 11 Most Tweeted CB Insights Data Visualizations of 2014” [IMAGE] 18 Dec 2014. Retrieved from https://www.cbinsights.com/research/team-blog/data-visualizations-popular-2014/

CB Insights. “The Top 12 Reasons Startups Fail” 3 Aug 2021. Retrieved from https://www.cbinsights.com/research/startup-failure-reasons-top/

BBC News. “Google Glass smart eyewear returns” [IMAGE] 18 July 2017. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40644195

Bloomberg Quicktake. “Do You Need a $400 Juicer?” [VIDEO] 19 April 2017. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lutHF5HhVA

Carson, B. “The $700 ‘Keurig for Juice’ is too expensive to solve a very real problem” 1 April 2016. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com.au/juicero-fails-to-solve-for-a-very-real-problem-2016-3?r=US&IR=T

McEleney, J. “5 Epic Consumer Product Design Failures” 17 Jan 2019. Retrieved from https://www.onshape.com/en/resource-center/innovation-blog/5-epic-consumer-product-design-failures

Problem solving is the enemy of empathy

It’s actually very common, even “normal”, in human conversations to jump to solutions. But this is the enemy of authentic human exchanges.

Water colour graphic representation of microbial cells in red and blue and green and yellow and orange.

Listening is hard work. And listening to someone’s pain is even harder.

Humans are good at avoiding pain. And we have a variety of defence reactions designed to block the experience of having pain. And that includes the pain caused by proximity to someone else’s pain.

This poses a problem for empathy . Empathy connects us to others’ pain. Problem solving is one of the most common blocks, and it can be hard to notice because most of the time problem solving is a pro social behaviour. Problem solving is an emotional intelligence skill.

In coaching we resist the impulse to offer solutions to the challenges our clients talk about. This is no small feat actually. It takes practice and more practice.

It’s actually very common, even “normal”, in human conversations to jump to solutions. But this is the enemy of authentic human exchanges. So stop it. Seriously, stop it.

Our desire to problem solve might come from empathy , but it doesn’t express empathy . We struggle to see someone we love and care about in pain. It hurts us. That hurt flows from empathy.

And it’s uncomfortable. So we try to put it in the closet. Our brain reacts impulsively: go away pain .

“Sooo… you just want me to listen to your story of heartbreak and control my impulse to mucky muck and look smart and fix things?”

But in order to express empathy, we need to do something else. And this something else takes practice. It’s a little like walking into fire. It takes training. You have to overcome your fear of discomfort.

Even after coaching for as long as I have, it’s extraordinary how often the impulse to problem solve comes up. It’s ongoing. And I have to continue to cultivate my awareness and my capacity to resist the gravitational force of trying to fix people’s challenges.

When I offer a solution, it immediately makes me feel better. But when someone else offers a solution to me, I often feel like they’re shutting down the conversation. Problem solving is a an exit. Problem solving can act as a signal to the person exploring a situation, that the exploration is (or should be) over. And in some cases this invitation to exit is not an invitation. It’s a tacit judgement of someone’s interest in exploring the terrain of their experience.

Solutions we offer are rarely as good as what someone comes up with themselves. This is because folks know the nuance and subtleties of their context. Or they want to know it. This is why in coaching we cultivate the practice of asking questions. We try to create a space within which people can explore the terrain of their contexts and emotions and when they’re ready they can construct their own map and path.

Even in the instance that a coach, or mentor, or friend, does know better than a colleague, this doesn’t necessarily predicate problem solving. Doing so prematurely can rob them of the chance to explore and articulate their experience and effectively journey through a map of their own creation.

In many contexts, especially in our work lives, problem solving is what’s called for. This is why it’s so important to avoid doing it in the situations where problem solving is best set aside.

Get EQ-i 2.0 / EQ 360 Certified Online

Emotional intelligence competencies are critical skills that are highly correlated with performance and wellbeing. Get certified to assess and develop emotional intelligence.

Rebecca Cory is an EQ coach. She has an MA in Adult Education from the University of Victoria. In addition to her work as an EQ coach with EITC, she is the Program Coordinator for University 101, a UVic initiative to make knowledge more accessible. She has worked in community engagement, facilitation, and curriculum development for over fifteen years.

Some beautiful earth-tone art that looks perhaps like it is in the shape of a surreal human figure.

More New Year’s resolution success with emotional intelligence

An illustration of bright lines circling and intersecting and overlapping chaotically with one space in the middle with a single circle.

Conflict-resilience through coaching and emotional intelligence

Team members of AFC Richmond, from the Ted Lasso television series, stand under a beat up "BELIEVE" poster and touching it with their hands.

Culture is grown not built

Dramatic and vibrant oil painting consisting of reds and oranges and some blue and purple.

Preventing, or reversing, the turnover trend

Illustration of many faces of people overlapping and busy and maximal.

How emotional intelligence can boost your organization’s bottom line by increasing productivity and saving money

$A beautifully illustrated tree basks in a blue sky with green and blue light refracting through the leaves.$

Accelerating DEI in the workplace? You will need emotional intelligence skills

Two team members chat in the hallway having a laugh and enjoying each others' company.

Building emotional intelligence into your company culture will give you an edge in competing for new talent

Two people hang from ropes in the clouds, but one of them has their toes resting on the tip of a large rock.

Challenging the myth that resilience is simply personal fortitude

A woman sits on a coach holding a game console and wearing a 3D virtual reality headset.

How to bring more emotional intelligence to social media and virtual communities

One person in a crowd is orange and red with clouds floating over them and they are looking up in a curious way.

Why curiosity is a power skill

Two art pieces in black and white are displayed onto sand and light sage coloured backgrounds and they look complementary.

Coaching with emotional intelligence

A negotiator listens intently and watches carefully while their negotiating partner explains something going on for them.

Negotiating with emotional intelligence

EQ-i 2.0 Online Certification

Get connected.

Problem Solving Versus Empathy

#problem solving
#communication
#jerry colonna

A classical relationship problem is the dichotomy between solving a problem and providing empathy. If you really want to understand this, spend two minutes and watch the awesome “It’s Not About The Nail” video below.

Amy and I have figured this out extremely well in our relationship. We talk about it in Startup Life: Surviving and Thriving in a Relationship with an Entrepreneur using the example of the scene from the movie White Men Can’t Jump to frame the situation.

There’s a delightful scene in the movie White Men Can’t Jump. In it, Billy Hoyle (played by Woody Harrelson) and Gloria Clemente (played by Rosie Perez) are in bed together. Gloria says to Billy, “Honey, I’m thirsty.” Billy gets up without saying word, goes to the kitchen, fills up a glass of water, brings it back to the bed, and gives it to Gloria. As Billy is crawling back into bed, Gloria tosses the water in his face. Startled, Billy says, “What?!” A long conversation ensues, which can be summarized as, “Honey, when I say I’m thirsty, I don’t want a glass of water. I want empathy. I want you to say, ‘I know what it’s like to be thirsty.’”

But this isn’t limited to personal relationships, or the difference between men and women (lots of men need empathy, even if they don’t know how to ask for it.) I see this all the time in my interaction with entrepreneurs and CEOs. I see it in the board room. And I see it in the way a CEO works with her leadership team.

The natural reaction in many of these cases is to immediately jump in and solve the problem. Granted, this is male-centric, as the ratio of men to women in these meetings at startups and entrepreneurial companies is very high. But it’s also CEO and entrepreneur-centric behavior; most CEOs and entrepreneurs are heat seeking problem solving missiles.

If you are an entrepreneur, CEO, or VC take a moment and think. Do you ever focus on “empathy” rather than “problem solving.” If you want to see an example of this in action, watch Jerry Colonna’s brilliant interview with Jason Calacanis. There’s a lot of incredible things on display in this interview, including plenty of empathy.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Relationship Between the Problem-Solving Skills and Empathy Skills of Operating Room Nurses

2019, Journal of Nursing Research

Related Papers

şermin metin , Şule Kavak

This study aiming to determine whether there is a relationship between social skills and problem solving skills of students in Primary Education Department of the Faculty of Education and reveal the differences between departments is a descriptive study done with the relational screening model. A total of 246 prospective teachers who were studying in the first and fourth grade in the departments of PreSchool Education and Classroom Education in the Department of Basic Education of Abant İzzet Baysal University Education Faculty were included In the study group, in the 2016-2017 academic year. The Social Skill Inventory (SOBE) developed by Aydoğan and Özyürek (2016) and the Problem Solving Inventory (PÇE) developed by Heppner and Peterson (1982) were used to collect the data. In the analysis of the data obtained, t test, unidirectional variance analysis (ANOVA), Kruskal Wallis H test, and Pearson Correlation Coefficient were used for number, percentage, unrelated samples. As a result of the research, it was found that there was a positive and meaningful relationship between the students' social skills proficiency and problem solving skill perceptions, that the age of the students caused a significant difference in the social skill levels of the students, and that the pre-primary education students, the female students, the fourth grade students and the students with high academic averages had higher level of social skills and more adequate problem solving perception.

Client – centered Nursing Care Journal

Background: Today’s nursing graduates value ability to creatively solve problems and make decisions, as these skills assist them with recognizing and evaluating situations that require prompt attention. This study aimed to determine and compare nursing student’s perceived levels of own problem solving skills in various years of their 4-year program. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study. All undergaraduate nursing students (350) included in this study. A total of 322 undergraduate nursing students participated in this study. The study setting was Nursing School of Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. The problem solving inventory (PSI), a widely used measure to assess one’s perceived ability, was used for data collection. Low scores indicated the strong judgment ability and high scores a weak judgment ability. Students involved in the study signed the informed consent forms. Results: Findings showed that the mean score of total problem solving skill was 89.52±21.58. The mean score of this skill in fourth year students (84.18±27.47) was less than other students i.e. the fourth year (senior) students judged their own problem solving abilities stronger than other students. Conclusion: Educating should help students reach the high levels of problem solving skills by allowing them to acquire and practice these abilities in the field. Nursing students with advanced problem solving skills are essential for this changing society.

Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala

Iryna Zharkova , Marija Czepil

Belgin Bal İncebacak

A problem is a situation, in which a person tries to find a solution and does not exactly know how but still tries to solve it. One of the important elements of problem solving skills that individuals should have is to choose the appropriate strategy in the solution of the problems, which is important in terms of achieving success in solving problems. The research question of the study is " what are the levels of sixth and seventh grade students' problem solving skills? " The aim of this study was to investigate the problem solving and problem-solving strategies levels of secondary school students. The study was carried out through method with a total of 72 students from the two provinces in the Black Sea region of Turkey selected by random in the second term of the 2014-2015 academic year. In this qualitative research for the case study, content analysis was applied. The study group consists of 50 students in Samsun province and 22 students in Sinop province in the Blacksea region, 35 of the students are females, whereas 37 of them are male students. Turkish by the researchers, were used as the data collection tools. The problems applied were evaluated according to Polya's stage of problem solving. The problems were evaluated according to stages such as understanding the problem, choosing a strategy, applying the chosen strategy, and evaluating the solution. While examining students' problem solving papers, it was observed that they were more successful at solving problems, with which they came across before or are similar to the ones they had solved. It was observed that majority of the students had difficulty in solving non-routine problems. It is believed that this results from the fact that mostly routine problems are discussed and solved in the curricula.

IJAR Indexing

Problem solving has a special importance in the study of mathematics. The primary goal of mathematics teaching and learning is to develop the ability to solve a wide variety of complex mathematics problems. A problem is an obstruction of some sort to the attainment of an objective, a sort of difficulty which does not enable the individual to reach a goal easily. The present study aims to find out the relationship between problem solving ability and achievement in mathematics of higher secondary students. Fifty five, higher secondary students were randomly selected as sample. Survey method was adopted for the study. The data was collected using a test on problem solving ability (PSA). The t-test, chi-square test and pearson?s product moment correlation were applied to test the hypotheses. Interpretation were drawn based on the findings. Problem solving ability of the higher secondary students was found to be an average and there was a high positive correlation between problem solving ability and achievement in mathematics.

International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences

Elifcan Cesur

Problem solving is one of the important skills, which enables individuals to adapt to life and is associated with skills like theory of mind, empathy and self-regulation, in their life. Problem solving is an improvable skill and should be supported as from early childhood years. The purpose of this study is to determine how children generate solutions to problems and how they feel in such cases. As long as children are good problem solvers, they will find effective solutions to all kinds of problems. In the study, the qualitative model and the case design were used. The data of study were obtained from the children attending a kindergarten in the city center of Kırklareli in the school year of 2016-2017. Eleven children who were selected on a volunteer basis were included in the study where content analysis was carried out. Among the children who participated in the study, six were girls and five were boys. During the application, a puppet and five problem statuses were used. The data collected as a result of one-to-one applications with the children were examined with content analysis method. As a result of the study, it was observed that the children were able to generate effective solutions including the use of empathy and self-regulation skills to the problem statuses; however, they had difficulty in naming their emotions in relation to problem statuses. The results of the study suggest that primarily parents and educators should emphasize emotions more and encourage children to think about their emotions. Additionally, qualitative studies with larger sample groups concerning theory of mind, problem solving, empathy and self-regulation skills can help to understand the development process of these skills better.

Aysel Köksal Akyol , Vuslat OĞUZ

In this research, it is aimed to determine whether problem solving skills of 60-72-month-old children attending a nursery school change as regards gender, birth order, the duration of nursery school attendance and the number of children in the family. The sample of 204 children consisting of 60-72 month-old children attending a nursery school are interviewed. Data is collected by means of the Personal Information Form and the Problem Solving Skills Scale (PSSS). The Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal Wallis test are used for the statistical analysis. According to the results, it is obtained that gender, birth order, the duration of nursery school attendance and the number of children in the family do not significantly affect the problem solving skills of children (p>.05).

Shanlax International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities

Lilu Ram Jakhar

Problem solving is one of the basic requirement for the adjustment and social well-being for an individual. The present study was conducted to ascertain whether there exists difference in the problem solving ability of the students studying at the secondary stage on the basis of the gender. The results of the study showed that the mean score on the problem solving ability test of the boys was 10.14 whereas the mean score on the problem solving ability test of girls was found to be 10.40. The difference in the mean scores of the problem solving ability was determined by applying t- test and was found to be 0.26. This indicate that the there is no significant difference in the problem solving ability of the students on the basis of gender at secondary level.

Journal of Education and Health Promotion

sara shahbazi

BACKGROUND: Nursing students are generally trained to acquire the knowledge, skills, and approaches required for solving problems and contradictions in life and at work. In fact, problem-solving skills are the core of effective nursing activities. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of problem-solving training on the promotion of emotional intelligence in nursing students. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This interventional case–control study used a pretest-posttest design. All senior nursing students (n = 43) attending the seventh semester of their undergraduate studies at Hazrat Fatemeh School of Nursing and Midwifery of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences were recruited in the present study. The participants were randomly allocated to either the intervention group (n = 20) or the control group (n = 23). The collected data were analyzed with SPSS software version 16. RESULTS: While the mean standardized scores of Emotional Quotient Inventory of the two group...

Educational research and reviews

Veysel Temel

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Jimrose M O V E O N T A N G A 1 5 Dionaldo

International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology

International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology IJSRST

Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Madhuri Hooda

Indian journal of applied research

MANOJ PRAVEEN G

Universal Journal of Educational Research

Çiğdem Arslan

MS Dawngliani

Ertan Basha

Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn)

The Ijes The Ijes

Mahmut Polatcan

IJRISE Journal

Iuliana Zsoldos-Marchis

RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary

International Journal of Peace, Education and Development

Gülsüm DÜŞEK

International journal of nursing knowledge

Ayfer Bayındır Çevik

IOSR Journals

Eurasian Journal of Educational Research

gülsüm ançel

Caglayan Dincer

The Conflict Expert

Resolving conflict with clarity, perspective and empowerment, how empathy can resolve and prevent conflict.

My four-year-old niece stamped her feet and whaled in agony when my brother told her she was too ill to go to the fun fair that evening. She ran over to me and climbed onto my lap, red faced and spluttering between breaths that it wasn’t fair and I had to tell her father to “stop being horrible.” I stroked her hair away from her wet face and explained to her that it was cold and her tonsillitis would get worse but I soon realised that my reaction wasn’t helping as she carried on talking about the injustice of it all. There was no point in explaining intellectually to a child about viruses and how they heal by resting. My niece, in her own innocent view of the world, was feeling the sad disappointment that we all feel when a promise is broken, no matter what the good intention behind that was.

As adults, we learn that life brings disappointments in many forms and it doesn’t matter how trivial it appears, the experience of suffering can be intense and sometimes devastating.

When we use empathy in our daily interactions, we become able to listen deeply to each other, expressing how we feel, what our prejudices and deep-rooted perceptions are without judging them. We can still be present with them by making space for the expression of their suffering without attempting to change it or shut it down in some way, perhaps by offering explanations or advice. I’m not saying that my niece should have communicated herself better but instead that I should have stopped trying to make it all go away and just listen.

There are several definitions of empathy from a psychological and philosophical perspective, but ultimately, it consists of a “respectful understanding of what another is experiencing.” [1] Empathy and compassion are similar in that they both require an awareness of another person’s suffering and an acceptance of this subjective experience. Compassion is, however, about staying with a person in those difficult moments but not absorbing the same emotions that they might be feeling and actively trying to alleviate their suffering. As the Dalai Lama taught , what helps to cultivate compassion is accepting that we all suffer, even those that have committed the most heinous crimes. Both are important human responses to some of the few concrete conditions of life and suffering is one of them.

Finding Common Ground

Knowing that suffering is universal helps us to find common ground and in conflict, this can avoid stalemate . Being able to sit and just listen to every aspect of how a person is communicating their discomfort can help you to understand their perspective, their needs and interests and their perceptions and prejudices which are key elements of conflict.

You may have already noticed your own responses to conflict. I remember a man shouting angrily at me because I was complaining quite forcefully about the immensely slow speed of his internet café’s connection.

I’d already begun to formulate my own perceptions of his response; he was rude, he was a male chauvinist and worst of all, he was an idiot! My mind had automatically distanced him from me on a very human level. I realised how ridiculous my reaction had been when he told me that he really didn’t need this right now because his father had only recently passed away.

This flash of vulnerability made me connect with his loss and empathise with his sadness and anger. I apologised after a long pause, offered my condolences and he suggested that I try a different computer with a better connection. That’s the power of empathy and compassion. It allows us to bridge the gaps in our differences, especially those which we create in our minds that allow conflict to continue.

Top Tips To Resolve and Prevent Conflict

Empathy isn’t something that you can learn in a corporate course or a two-day self-development event. It’s not something you can read about in an article or watch a Ted Talk and become an expert. It takes patience and dedication to change how you see other people and their experience of life. This is often testing, especially when what they say differs fundamentally from how we view the World or the things that they have done have profoundly wounded us in some way. Essentially, it takes self-accountability and awareness and whilst I can’t promise that you’ll get it right in every conflict, I can give you some tips on how you can use empathy and compassion to resolve and prevent conflict.

How to Put Empathy Into Practice

Become Self-Aware. When you feel that conflict is about to erupt, what is your first thought? Do you instantly start blaming the other person because of their innate qualities? Do you express prejudice such as, “what do you expect from a …” What is your conflict style? Acknowledging this in yourself and to accept that this is normal, will help you to accept it in others.
Work On Seeing the Similarities Between Yourself and the Other Person. Can you identify with their needs and interests? Is it possible to understand that they may have experienced something difficult or uncomfortable or are you able to see some of their emotions in yourself? By doing this, you bring the person closer to you instead of creating further barriers that stop you from constructively resolving or from preventing conflict. We all know what it is like to feel isolated, excluded, disappointed and angry and we all have very similar needs and interests.
Learn to Listen. Let the other person speak about their point of view. Acknowledge their difficulties. Confirm that you have heard their emotions and encourage them to trust you enough to be vulnerable. Things to avoid doing are giving advice, justifying yourself, explaining, shutting down what they are saying because you find it uncomfortable or diverting the conversation to your own experience.

It may look easy but real empathy takes time and practice and a constant eye on your own reactions and responses. Using it in a conflict context to communicate can encourage participants to deconstruct the perceptions that condition our responses and to build bridges between us for better understanding.

Let me know what you think!

[1] Marshall B. Rosenburg, Non-Violent Communication (3 rd edn., Puddle Dancer Press, 2015)

14 comments

Hey, lately I have finished preparing my ultimate tutorial:

+++ [Beginner’s Guide] How To Make A Website From Scratch +++

I would really apprecaite your feedback, so I can improve my craft.

Link: https://janzac.com/how-to-make-a-website/

If you know someone who may benefit from reading it, I would be really grateful for sharing a link.

Much love from Poland! Cheers

Thanks ! I will check it out 🙂

Pingback: 10 Ways Small Businesses Can Manage Conflict | The Conflict Expert

Great post but too much information to take in at once … I’d make three posts out of this.

Only saying coz you asked .. but great info and videos, just smaller bite sizes thanks 🙂

Like Liked by 1 person

Thanks for your feedback, I really do appreciate these kind of tips because I am wondering always how to improve my blog posts. I think I will take your advice on board and write some spin off posts. 🙂 Thanks again and keep the useful advice coming ……

you’re most welcome, my posts are short and I know followers appreciate that … so breaking them down will attract more readers 🙂

Pingback: Surviving Conflict With a Narcissist. Six Tips on Staying Sane and Keeping Your Cool | The Conflict Expert

Pingback: Caught In the Middle of Conflict – PushUP24

Pingback: Your Guide to Compassionate Conflict Management - BP Dudley & Associates

Pingback: What Every Successful Leader Knows - DigitalAdBlog

Pingback: How To Move On Without Closure | The Conflict Expert

Pingback: Empathy's Role in Workplace Conflict Resolution | ALL-PLEASUER

Pingback: How to handle conflict with a narcissist AND stay sane | The Conflict Expert

Pingback: How to Resolve Conflicts Amicably – Read it!

Psychology Explains the Link Between Empathy and Creativity

Researchers explain why empathetic people are often creative – and vice versa.

New research suggests that a previously unnamed type of empathy may exist – creative empathy.

An article from PsyPost discusses a series of studies published in the Creativity Research Journal exploring the relationship between being empathetic and creative. It suggests that these are interconnected facets of human cognition and emotion. The researchers introduce the concept of “creative empathy,” which is an appropriate and novel representation of another person’s mental state.

Here’s a detailed breakdown:

Creative Empathy: A Relatively New Concept

What is creative empathy? The term involves creating a relevant, appropriate, and new mental representation of someone else’s emotional and mental state.

The researchers argue that traditional psychological research has often neglected the various paths people might take to understand others’ minds. They also noted that empathizing involves an open-ended and creative process of constructing mental states and responses.

Studies and Findings on Creative Empathy

Study 1 & 2: creativity instructions and empathic responses.

The objective of the first studies was to explore the impact of creativity instructions on empathic responses.

The research team asked study participants to explain the perceived mental states of faces displaying emotions under different instructions. The three categories included creative, accurate, and control.

Participants under the creative condition produced more creative responses, indicating they could enhance creativity within an empathic context through specific instructions.

Study 3 & 4: Empathic Divergent Thinking Task

The objective of the following two studies was to explore creativity and empathy using a different measure..

What they found was a strong correlation between creative thinking and empathy. Creativity instructions increased creativity scores, and empathetic instructions also increased creativity scores. However, the highest creativity scores were linked to lower empathic concern and helping intentions.

Key Insights and Implications of Studying Creative Empathy

Mutual enhancement is at play between creativity and empathy, there is a complex relationship between creative thinking and empathy, potential conflicts between creativity and empathy, real-world implications of creative empathy, practical outcomes , ethical considerations, creative empathy and emotional well-being, future research directions in creative empathy, final thoughts on creative empathy.

The research shows how being empathetic and creative can interact and potentially enhance each other. However, their relationship is not always straightforward.

Please enable JavaScript

Comments & Discussions

About the Author

Power of Positivity

Related articles, why cancer is the most difficult sign to understand, here’s the key to staying positive (even when life is hard), doctors explain 10 reasons to drink lemon water every day , 20 ways to emotionally reconnect with your partner, 15 signs a woman is ready for a committed relationship, 15 signs a man is ready for a committed relationship, 15 reasons many singles prefer to stay that way, 15 behaviors of a woman who isn’t interested anymore, 15 behaviors of a man who isn’t interested anymore, the community, our free community of positively powerful superfans, rise and shine on master your day with the ultimate positive morning guide + checklist, stay connected with, every day is a day to shine. shine on.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 19 July 2024

A dual pathway for understanding the relation between wellbeing and resilience

Missiliana Riasnugrahani ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7287-3941 1 ,
Tery Setiawan ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1813-9097 1 , 2 ,
Edwin de Jong 2 &
Bagus Takwin 3

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 11 , Article number: 937 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

109 Accesses

Metrics details

This study investigates the intricate connections between relational wellbeing and individual resilience, through family and community protective factors. As such, we aim to bridge an existing gap in resilience literature by examining the elements that contribute to individual resilience from a relational perspective through a random sample of slum dwellers in Indonesia. To address this research gap, we adopted White’s conceptualisation of relational wellbeing and integrated Benard’s perspective on individual resilience and applied them using established measures to assess the general population living in slum areas across three Indonesian cities: Bima, Manado and Pontianak. Rigorous confirmatory factor analysis were conducted to establish the validity and reliability of all employed measures. The results of the mediated-path analysis underscore the significance of family protective factors in most relationships between dimensions of relational wellbeing and individual resilience. Notably, the two mediators exhibited distinct effects: the former positively mediated the relation, while the latter demonstrated an inverted mediation effect. These findings significantly enhance our understanding of the nuanced interplay between wellbeing and resilience, particularly regarding the impact of familial and community support on individuals’ ability to cope with daily life challenges, especially in disaster-prone areas.

Mastery and social position: factors in negotiating urban social resilience

Theories explaining the relationship between neighbourhood stressors and depressive symptoms

Interrelations of resilience factors and their incremental impact for mental health: insights from network modeling using a prospective study across seven timepoints

Introduction.

Resilience has emerged as a key concept for understanding how individuals navigate and adapt to adversity (Miller-Graff, 2022 ). Broadly defined, resilience encapsulates the capacity to manoeuvre through challenges and exhibit adaptability in the face of adversity (Mguni et al., 2012 ; Southwick et al., 2014 ). This concept operates at multiple levels, encompassing community resilience (Kimhi, 2016 ), family or household resilience (Nguyen and James, 2013 ; Setiawan et al., 2022 ), and individual resilience (Benard, 1999 ). Furthermore, resilience extends beyond the individual or social context to encompass the ability of systems to successfully adapt to emerging challenges (Masten, 2021 ; Southwick et al., 2014 ). This versatility has led to the application of resilience across diverse disciplines, ranging from engineering to the social sciences and ecology.

In our swiftly evolving world, the manner in which resilience is embraced plays a pivotal role in shaping the quality of people’s life. Individuals across diverse backgrounds encounter daily uncertainties, spanning social changes, unemployment, and poverty, to the far-reaching impacts of climatic changes, like flooding and landslides (Armitage et al., 2012 ).

Indonesia offers an ideal backdrop for exploring the concept of resilience. The country has undergone significant urbanisation, driven by a substantial migration from rural to urban areas. This phenomenon has compelled individuals at the lower end of the economic spectrum to inhabit densely populated areas with limited public amenities, especially in marginalised locales often referred to as left-behind places or slums. Many of these settlements are situated along riverbanks, exacerbating challenges related to inadequate access to clean water and heightened vulnerability to frequent floods (Rentschler et al., 2021 ; World Bank Group and Global Water Security and Sanitation Partnership, 2021 ). Further complicating the situation, these individuals are susceptible to economic and health repercussions, exemplified by the challenges posed by events such as the COVID-19 pandemic (SMERU et al., 2021 ). Consequently, evaluating resilience becomes an even more pertinent framework for elucidating how residents in slum areas can either adapt or grapple with behaviour adjustments in response to environmental changes.

According to a World Bank report on flood risk management in Indonesia, rapid urbanisation has heightened flood risks in at least three cities: Bima, Manado and Pontianak (World Bank Group, 2018 ). Each city exhibits a distinct flood risk typology, with Bima susceptible to fluvial and coastal hazards, Manado more prone to pluvial hazards, and Pontianak facing risks from pluvial, fluvial, and coastal flooding. While varying degrees of flood risk exist within each city, it is universally acknowledged that communities with low socio-economic profiles are the most vulnerable (Rentschler et al., 2021 ). These communities often inhabit or are forced into settlements characterised by subpar infrastructure, including, inadequate drainage networks, poor building quality, and insufficient water installations. Moreover, these settlements tend to have a high population density. Consequently, residents not only grapple with the intensified impact of floods or inundations but also contend with a lack of clean water on a daily basis. Frequently classified as slums ( kawasan kumuh in Indonesian legal terms) by United Nations (UN) standards (UN-Habitat, 2003 ), these communities find themselves compelled to reside in such areas to secure housing that aligns with their limited earning opportunities. However, the projected increase in flood risks poses a severe threat to the socio-economic progress of these cities, disproportionately affecting those residing in slum settlements.

Hence, the primary objective of this study is to examine the resilience of individuals residing in Indonesian slums, with a specific focus on scrutinizing their wellbeing. The research is centred on elucidating individual resilience in slum settlements in Bima, Manado and Pontianak, where inhabitants face daily challenges related to meeting clean water needs and grappling with flood/inundation impacts. Through this investigation, we anticipate that the findings can be utilized to further explore the role of individual resilience in predicting pro-environmental behaviours among individuals managing aquatic challenges.

Moreover, wellbeing emerges as a pivotal element in resilience discussions, with both concepts converging in how individuals generate positive self-evaluations (Hascher et al., 2021 ). Individual wellbeing is intricately connected to resilience, as higher positive evaluations of one’s life have been correlated with stress reduction and an enhanced ability to cope with adversity (Fredrickson and Joiner, 2002 ). This association is especially pertinent for those residing in slum areas facing daily aquatic challenges. Therefore, delving into individual’s wellbeing and its correlation with resilience is a crucial step in comprehending behavioural patterns stemming from their life evaluations and understanding how these patterns relate to their ability to sustain life in settlements prone to aquatic disasters.

Wellbeing encompasses a broad spectrum, extending from personal or psychological wellbeing (Diener et al., 1999 ) to a more socially and structurally dependent form known as relational wellbeing (White, 2015 ). In the specific context of our research, many slum dwellers share close connections as relatives or long-time neighbours (Chaudhuri, 2015 ). Consequently, the theory of relational wellbeing emerges as a fitting framework for our study. According to the theory of relational wellbeing, individuals should be viewed as relational subjects actively participating in their own lives rather than mere objects of others’ attention (White and Jha, 2023 ). This perspective acknowledges that people are influenced by their relationships with others and the material and social contexts surrounding them. These relationships not only shape individuals but also serve as the means through which people address a diverse range of needs. To delve deeper, White ( 2010 ) proposed a three-dimensional model of wellbeing, comprising material, relational, and subjective dimensions. Each dimension possesses distinct properties, with the material dimension encompassing assets, the relational dimension consisting of social relations, and the subjective dimension containing individual values and beliefs. These dimensions are interconnected, emphasising that no single dimension can exist in isolation. In essence, relational wellbeing is central to understanding that social relationships are not just social determinants of wellbeing but also a medium that allows wellbeing to thrive and flourish (White, 2015 ).

This is consistent with Benard’s ( 1999 ) theoretical claims for individual resilience’s dependence on protective factors, such as family and community. With relationality central to individuals’ evaluation of their current situations, the expression of their relational wellbeing will emerge from their perceived relationships with their family, community, nature and even public facilities in their living space. As White ( 2010 , p.164) proclaims, “… people become who and what they are in and through their relatedness to others.” This, in turn, is expected to affect their individual resilience.

Previous research has identified a range of factors that contribute to individual resilience. This includes social support, organizational engagement and healthy climate (Hascher et al., 2021 ; Koay and Dillon, 2020 ; Lester et al., 2020 ). However, there is very limited research on the factors that contribute to individual resilience among slum dwellers in Indonesia; let alone from the relational wellbeing perspective. This study addresses this gap by investigating the relationship among slum dwellers in Indonesia between wellbeing and individual resilience mediated by family and community protective factors. We do this by relying on the Resilient Indonesian Slums Envisioned (RISE) project dataset. This is comprised of random samples of slum dwellers living in the cities of Bima, Manado and Pontianak. Together, these cities represent most of the social and water challenges Indonesian cities face nowadays.

The results contribute to the extant literature on resilience, but also offer practical implications for policymakers and practitioners in the field of urban community development. They identify pathways for contributing to resilience among slum dwellers to develop interventions and policies to build resilient community members and improve the wellbeing of people living in prone-to-disaster areas.

In so doing, we constructed the following research question: To what extent can the relation between relational wellbeing dimensions and individual resilience be explained by family and community protective factors among slum dwellers in Indonesia?

To explore this relationship for our case study cities in Indonesia, we theorise first on the concepts of individual resilience and relational wellbeing and the intermediary role of family and community and, subsequently, on the applied methodology and analysis.

Theoretical framework

Individual resilience.

In the past three decades, resilience has been studied in various settings, from disaster-risk situations (González-Riancho et al., 2015 ) to individuals with psychological problems, e.g., juvenile substance abuse (Benard, 1999 ; Paton and Johnston, 2001 ; Twigg, 2009 ). Although different settings, these studies all agree that how resilience is expressed is an essential response to dealing with adversity. In the context of disasters, research on resilience has burgeoned, contributing to the development of diverse perspectives on subject. A notable evolution in this discourse is the transition from a focus on individuals’ capacity to bounce back to an emphasis on dynamic systems’ ability to adeptly respond to emerging challenges (Masten, 2021 ). The term “system” encompasses a broad spectrum, spanning from regional and community entities to individual homes and even ecological systems (Chapin et al., 2009 ). While various theories may offer nuanced definitions, a consensus emerges that resilience extends beyond an individual’s possession of positive traits or resources. It also encompasses the crucial aspects of whether these positive attributes and resources manifest during the adaptive processes of individuals (Miller-Graff, 2022 ).

We prioritise the examination of individual resilience due to its pivotal role in shaping an individual’s decision-making process when confronting adversity. Research has demonstrated that individual resilience has the capacity to foster a sense of optimism and hope (Benard, 1999 ), and help individuals in overcoming distress (Ferreira et al., 2020 ). By adopting a system perspective on resilience, we posit that other forms of resilience, including household and community resilience, arise within and are intricately woven into networked systems of individuals (Masten, 2021 ). Individual resilience, in this context, signifies the degree to which individuals can collaborate with others, employ problem-solving skills, exercise autonomy to work independently towards common goals, and effectively plan and execute tasks (Benard, 1997 ). Consequently, when disruptions occur at one level of the system, such as within a family grappling with daily hardships in areas prone to aquatic disasters, the role of individual resilience becomes paramount. Therefore, individuals with high levels of resilience are assumed to form positive social relationships with others, learn new strategies to mitigate risks, and adapt to adverse circumstances by finding innovative ways to meet their daily needs while navigating the risks. In the following section, we delve into the antecedents of individual resilience, examining them through the lens of protective factors and wellbeing, as elucidated by scholar such as Benard ( 1991 ) and Hascher et al. ( 2021 ).

Individual resilience and its protective factors

Individual resilience delineates the capacity of individuals to bounce back from adverse life events and sustain their functioning at an acceptable level in the aftermath of challenges (Eachus, 2014 ). According to Benard ( 2004 ), resilience is a built-in trait of every individual, constituting an inherent trait that can be moulded and influenced by their social environment. Thus, resilient individuals have distinct characteristics, such as heightened responsiveness, proactivity, and empathy. They often demonstrate prosocial behaviours, showcasing social competence. Additionally, resilience is associated with the ability to think abstractly and a flexibility that allows for the generation of alternative solutions through effective problem-solving skills. Individuals with high resilience further manifest their ability to act independently, establishing a sense of control over their environment, a quality referred to as autonomy They exhibit hope, a positive orientation towards success, a clear sense of purpose, and an active engagement with the future.

According to Benard ( 2004 ), resilience can develop positively over time and result in adaptive behaviours if the environment provides protective factors. The term environment pertains to individuals’ closest social systems, specifically their family and community, to which they feel a sense of identification (Bronfenbrenner, 1986 ). In contrast, protective factors denote the resources that individuals possess, serving as a buffer against the adverse impacts of adversity. Therefore, these protective factors play a vital role in fostering positive adaptation, particularly in the face of elevated levels of risk or difficulty. Benard ( 2004 ) claims that family and community provide three things to increase one’s resilience, namely: caring relationships, high expectations message, and opportunities to participate and contribute.

Precisely, a family can be defined as a cohesive unit whose membership is typically established through kinship, marriage, and descent. Members of a family commonly inhabit the same dwelling unit, where economic and psychological functions are shared and intertwined (Treuthart, 1991 ). Family can be a protective factor if individuals can receive good resources from their family. These resources might include: a warm relationship and absence of severe criticism (caring relationships), positive expectations and beliefs from adults (high expectations), and an opportunity to express opinions and have responsibility (opportunities to participate and contribute). In practical terms, caring relationships reflect the degree to which family members embrace and bolster individuals’ aspirations. Conversely, high expectations denote the family’s confidence in the capabilities of its members. Meanwhile, opportunities to participate and contribute encompass the level of shared quality time and responsibilities between an individual and their family, serving as a means for personal development. If the family provides these conditions, the individual will feel fulfilled in their primary and psychological needs, including: affection, the need for belonging, security, independence, a sense of competence, amongst others. These resources can increase the resilience of the individual. In line with Juang et al. ( 2018 ), secure attachment relationships provide a stable sense of security when individuals are stressed and provide resources to bounce back. Individuals with a secure relationship, family closeness and support are more resilient than others because the attachment can help repair mood and regulate emotions. Familial capital also grows resilience because individuals can learn from their parents how to resolve difficulties (Kovács et al., 2022 ). Thus, the quality of attachment to family is a significant factor in enhancing individual resilience (Darling Rasmussen et al., 2019 ).

Regarding the significance of social relations in understanding a community, we adopt the perspective that defines a community as a place where one lives and cultivates meaningful social connections. In Benard’s ( 2004 ) view, a community can also serve as a protective factor when it cultivates a warm atmosphere and interconnectedness among its members (caring relationship), by establishing expectations and offering guidance in behaviour (reflecting high expectations) and by creating conditions that enhance competencies, foster a sense of belonging, cultivate leadership skills, and promote appreciation for problem-solving and decision-making abilities (opportunities to participate and contribute). People who receive social support, high expectations and opportunities to participate will feel supported and accepted. It enables individuals to be more capable of solving a problem, acquiring insight and to face life’s difficulties and crises (Benard, 2004 ).

People who develop active social participation have been shown to have positive attitudes, such as emotional maturity, self-confidence and persistence that encourage them to exhibit positive environmental behaviour and contribute to their psycho-social wellbeing (Marenco-Escuderos et al., 2020 ). In other words, having more positive peer relationships (such as greater trust, more communication and less isolation) are likely to be associated with lower anxiety and less depression, increased resilience and better adjustment (Juang et al., 2018 ). In effect, social capital creates room for resilience development (Kovács et al., 2022 ).

Relational wellbeing

Apart from family and community factors, according to Chaigneau et al. ( 2022 ), the level of individuals’ wellbeing positively affects the ability to adapt to stress and shocks. We, therefore, argue that relational wellbeing is also a significant resource for resilience, given it is aligned with individuals’ relationships with their family and community.

One of the well-known theories of wellbeing is subjective wellbeing (SWB), which complements economic indicators by measuring how individuals perceive their lives in specific circumstances (Diener et al., 1999 ; OECD, 2011 ). Despite its popularity, SWB poses challenges, as factors influencing life satisfaction may raise ethical concerns in certain cultures, yet they are crucial for adapting to situations. Another noteworthy theory is psychological wellbeing (PWB), which transcends mere happiness. Rooted in an eudaemonic approach, PWB emphasizes positive relations with others (Ryff, 1995 ), associating such relationships with warmth, satisfaction, and trustworthiness. Built on the capability approach, PWB suggests that individuals need specific capabilities, including fostering positive relationships, to achieve a good level of wellbeing (Ryff, 1995 ; White, 2015 ). On the other hand, relational wellbeing is individuals’ evaluation towards their life attainment and is a multidimensional construct that consists of material, relational and subjective dimensions (White, 2015 ). The material dimension includes resources, such as food, assets, and income, while the relational dimension consists of social and human components. Social aspects encompass how individuals relate to others and their satisfaction with public facilities, while human aspects include abilities, physical health, and personal relationships (White, 2010 ). The subjective dimension includes the individual’s perception of their position in material, social and relationship domains, as well as their cultural values, ideologies, and beliefs.

The most prominent distinction between relational wellbeing and other theories of wellbeing, such as SWB of Diener et al. ( 1999 ) and PWB of Ryff ( 2013 ), lies in the relationality among the three dimensions. No single dimension can exist without the others (White, 2015 ). Further, individuals’ relationships become central in explaining how they evaluate their lives. These relationships serve as means to meet ends (i.e., material and subjective dimensions) as well as integral parts of the entire life experience, determining their wellbeing (White, 2017 ). In short, individuals’ relationships play a key role in the interconnectedness between the experience of wellbeing and the three underlying dimensions within individuals and their contexts, dimensions that can either foster or undermine wellbeing.

In a similar vein, Mccubbin et al. ( 2013 ) have conceptualised relational wellbeing as an individual’s evaluation of the degree to which they fulfil their own needs and contribute to community needs. This is characterized by a sense of contentment and wellbeing stemming from the belief and competence to overcome adversity, as well as to show respect and harmony with nature and ancestors through cultural practices. Additionally, it involves effective management of financial resources, commitment to family, and access to quality health care. While Mccubbin’s emphasis on relationships seems to align with White’s relational wellbeing, there is a fundamental difference in their approach. White’s relational wellbeing is grounded in the ontological approach, which “regards relationality not as an external ‘social determinant’ or ‘social support’ (or constraint) to individual subjects, but as fundamentally constitutive of subjectivity” (2017, p.129). In this particular study, we adhere to White’s framework as the primary reference. White’s conceptualisation provides more detailed insights into how social relationships play a central role in elucidating individuals’ wellbeing.

According to White ( 2010 ), wellbeing should be considered a process, rather than a state, It involves three interdependent, mutually supportive dimensions that can also be in conflict with one another. To illustrate this, White ( 2015 ) draws the process of wellbeing as an interdependence of personal, societal and environmental processes. For psychologists, this can be simply understood by referring to the framework of the ecology of human development proposed by Bronfenbrenner ( 1986 ), which includes the chronosystem (personal), mesosystem (family and community), and ecosystem (broader context). For sociologists, anthropologists and other social science disciplines, this can be considered as different structures that underpin individuals’ lives (Mische, 2015 ; White, 2017 ), including the individual, collective or communities and institutions.

To operationalise this, we adhere to the proposed indicators of dimensions outlined by White ( 2010 ), maintaining environmental quality as a consistent construct representing the place of residence. We contend that this choice is highly relevant given our research focus on slum settlements, where living conditions are characterised by limited living space, and the natural and living environment converge into a single space. Although White ( 2015 ) did not encourage to operationalise the three dimensions into a strict list of indicators, she proposed a list of properties or indicators as to how these dimensions can be translated in research (see Table 1 ). For instance, the material can be recorded as the level of income an individual receives and the extent to which they are satisfied with their income (White, 2010 ). The social can be seen as their social and cultural identities, sense of security in their place of residence and access to public services. Whereas, the personal or subjective dimension can be covered by an individuals’ self-concept and personal beliefs, such as religiosity, which, within this context, explores the influence of individuals’ religious beliefs on their daily experiences. For instance, it examines the extent to which individuals perceive their religious beliefs as affecting their methods of coping with adversity in daily life.

Expanding upon the theory proposed by White’s ( 2010 ), we have formulated a definition of relational wellbeing as individuals’ ongoing evaluation of their achievements, encompassing material (e.g., satisfaction with their current income), subjective (e.g., their religious beliefs and personal development), and relational dimensions (e.g., their family and community involvement, and security and competition). At a glance, several properties of the dimensions within relational wellbeing may seem self-centred, as exemplified by satisfaction with the current income. However, taking into account the theoretical assumptions of White and Jha’s ( 2023 ) that individuals are equipped with personal aspirations and possess a natural inclination to integrate these aspirations into their social relationships, these seemingly self-centred properties are indeed socially oriented. White ( 2015 ) illustrates, for instance, that achieving economic success contributed to greater harmony within the families she studied in India. Therefore, within the realm of relational wellbeing, evaluating one’s life cannot simply be extracted from how they are doing in their career or in their community performance, but it must also consider how individual achievements impact their familial relationships.

Community resilience

We acknowledge that dealing with daily hardships in flood-prone slum areas requires more than just individual resilience. The ability of a community to withstand, recover from, and adapt to these challenges, often referred to as community resilience (Eachus, 2014 ; Nguyen and Akerkar, 2020 ), is essential for ensuring that individuals receive adequate support from their community. At the same time, the resilience of a community is also directly linked to the resilience of its individual members. If a substantial portion of individuals within a community lack resilience, it is highly unlikely that the community as a whole will be resilient. After all, the function of a community is not defined merely by its physical structures or location, but rather by the individuals who reside there. Since individuals do not live in isolation but are part of dynamic interactions within their community (Berkes and Ross, 2013 ), it is imperative to also consider community resilience to better understand its relationship with individual resilience in the face of daily hardships.

Recent research suggests that community resilience should be approached from a multi-dimensional perspective, encompassing interactions with local government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the natural environment, social, economic, and physical infrastructure. Using the Climate Disaster Resilience Index (CDRI) framework, we define community resilience as the community’s capacity to absorb daily challenges and mitigate them to sustain life (Joerin et al., 2014 ). This is assessed through five dimensions: physical (e.g., access to electricity, clean water), social (e.g., poverty rate, educational level), economic (e.g., income and saving), institutional (e.g., interaction with local figures), and natural (e.g., severity of natural hazards). These dimensions are selected because our study context not only pertains to urban slum living but also to urban slums with heightened flood risks (as evidenced in the report by Rentschler et al., 2021 ). We anticipate a positive relationship between the dimensions of community resilience and individual resilience.

The relations between relational wellbeing dimensions and individual resilience via individual’s relationship with family and community

Based on the aforementioned theoretical claims, we can safely conclude that individual resilience relies on multiple layers of society in which people live. By considering the different dimensions of relational wellbeing, we can further explain individuals’ resilience. Specifically, we learn that individuals living in slum areas who have material assets, social connections and the capacity to act collectively with others, are more likely to have higher resilience (see Chaigneau et al., 2022 ; Gillam and Charles, 2018 ). In addition, Schwalm et al. ( 2022 ) suggested that religious belief is one crucial factor related to resilience. People are more likely to be resilient in facing difficulties in life if they receive support from religious organizations. The opportunity to access public facilities is also essential to practice their beliefs and to support them when dealing with difficult times. These help individuals to develop a positive self-concept, which has been shown to improve general psychological attributes, such as resilience (Katsumata and Mohanan, 2020 ). Therefore, we hypothesized that the relational wellbeing dimensions operationalized by participation in family and community, security and competition between groups, material satisfaction, social access and facilities, religiosity and self-concept are positively related to individual resilience ( H 1).

The extant literature has shown that family and community factors provide protective resources for individuals in times of adversity. When individuals feel that their social relationships provide positive interaction and respond positively to their needs, they will show empathy, be more responsive and freely communicate their needs (Miller-Graff, 2022 ). Furthermore, when individuals feel that their communities provide alternative solutions to solve their problems (e.g., employment choices), people are given a chance to think independently about choosing the right decision to deal with their problems (Southwick et al., 2014 ). While all these resources may be taken for granted in mundane life, scholars agree that these are essential factors helping people develop their resilience and that will come evident in times of adversity, including in overcoming daily hardships (Benard, 1991 ; Miller-Graff, 2022 ). In particular, within a slum or disaster-prone community, people who cultivate social competence, problem solving skills, a sense of purpose and future, and autonomy are expected to exhibit swifter recovery following a flood disaster and are more likely to develop pro-environmental behaviours aimed at mitigating flood risks (Chaigneau et al., 2022 ; Kimhi, 2016 ).

In the meantime, individuals’ evaluation towards their life achievement so far is expected to relate to the individuals’ evaluation towards their relationships with family and community. Those who perceive themselves as capable of achieving their aspirations independently, without excessive reliance on others’ assistance, while also recognising the significance of their social relationships – such as consulting with family members on important life decisions - are likely to evaluate their relationships with family and community positively. Consequently, individuals are likely to perceive that they receive the necessary conditions, e.g., warm and caring relationships, to allow them to develop a desired level of individual resilience. This all implies a mediational role of protective factors in the direct relationship between relational wellbeing dimensions and individual resilience. Therefore, we hypothesize that family (H2) and community relationship (H3) positively mediate the relationship between relational wellbeing dimensions and individual resilience .

The current study uses a dataset from the RISE project focused on the relations between water management, wellbeing, and resilience. The project investigates the complex interactions between water management and adaptability among people living in slum areas. This interdisciplinary initiative addresses a range of critical issues, encompassing relational wellbeing, individuals’ interactions with local stakeholders, resilience, and individual livelihoods. The dataset and its documentation are publicly available through a data repository platform (Setiawan et al., 2022 ). We provide only a brief explanation of research locations, participants and measures employed to answer the research question.

Purposive selection of research locations

The study investigates the relationship between relational wellbeing dimensions and individual resilience considering the resilience protective factors among individuals living in vulnerable and disaster-prone areas in Indonesia. The country has many water-related threats that often remain unaddressed (World Bank Group and Global Water Security and Sanitation Partnership, 2021 ). One approach to addressing these issues is to concentrate on slum areas, which are frequently considered as disaster-prone communities. These are mostly situated along riverbanks or sea shorelines that characteristically have poor disaster mitigation systems. We selected three Indonesian cities (Bima, Manado and Pontianak) facing increasing risks of water-related disasters, according to the latest World Bank report (Rentschler et al., 2021 ). These are medium-sized cities that represent diverse stages of development and unique challenges, encompassing most of the social and water-related issues encountered by urban populations in Indonesia. After purposely choosing the cities, we selected districts according to the Mayor’s identification of slum settlements in each city (Dinas PUPR Kota Bima, 2019 ; Provinsi Kalimantan Barat, 2020 ; Provinsi Sulawesi Utara, 2021 ). To offer a comprehensive insight into the locations, we will provide a description of the three cities based on their geographical locations and past experiences with flood disasters.

Bima, situated downstream from an upstream river outlet, has an elevation of 2–20 metres above sea level (Putra, 2016 ). The selected research area was located in the Rasanae Barat district, specifically the Rontu watershed which consists of two sub-watersheds: Padolo and Melayu, each with one primary river, Sori Pedolo, and Sori Melayu, respectively (Rohmat et al., 2022 ). From the Rasanae Barat district, we purposely selected Paruga and Sarae sub-districts which fall within Padolo sub-watershed. During our research along the riverbanks, we observed a high population density and noticeable garbage accumulation, particularly in the downstream area. Additionally, we were informed by the locals that there has been no clean water available in one neighbourhood community in Paruga for the past seven years. The residents primarily depend on shallow wells for their water supply, typically reaching depths of around six metres. Deeper wells are often impractical as they tend to yield brackish water. Groundwater remains a primary water source, accessed through drilled wells in houses, although some households use refillable containers for drinking and cooking. In 2016, Bima faced significant floods, reaching three metres in height, causing road closures, and disrupting electricity and communication infrastructure (Nurlatifah et al., 2018 ). More recently, in 2021, flash floods occurred and affected 1930 households in Bima (Syarifudin, 2021 ).

In the case of Manado, the city is characterized by a sloping plain that encompasses approximately 78.51% of its area. The elevation of this plain varies from sea level to 240 metres (Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Manado, 2022 ). The city has three primary watersheds, namely Paniki, Sario and Tondano, that discharge into the city’s coastal areas (Rohmat et al., 2022 ). For the study, we purposely selected Wawonasa and Titiwungen Utara sub-districts within Tondano and Sario watersheds. Unlike Bima, Manado has a more developed water infrastructure which is managed by the government’s state water company ( Perusahaan Air Minum [PAM]). However, despite the extensive network, water availability often falls short, and water quality remains below standards. PAM services are also found to be frequently inaccessible in the more elevated areas. In 2022, a report noted cloudy and odorous water from PAM (Rohmat et al., 2022 ). Therefore, residents in high-elevated areas tend to rely on well water for domestic needs. In 2014 and 2022, Manado faced national attention due to flash floods, causing substantial damages to infrastructure and housing (Sabu, 2022 ).

Subsequently, Pontianak is situated at 0.1–1.5 metres above sea level. The city is well known for its network of ditches and susceptibility to flooding during high tide events (Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Pontianak, 2022 ; Rokib, 2021 ). The city is traversed by the Kapuas River. We selected Tambelan Sampit and Sungai Jawi Luar sub-districts, where a significant residential portion is along the Kapuas riverbanks. During the dry season, the Kapuas River maintains a normal discharge, but during the rainy season, flooding frequently occur, with existing ditches helping water recede within an hour. However, a study by Purnomo et al. ( 2019 ) highlighted that flooding could reach up to the height of one-story houses, particularly on riverbanks. In Tambelan Sampit, a waterfront was constructed in 2016 to mitigate flood risks (Jawapos, 2017 ). Residents rely on rainwater and river water, despite poor quality characterized by its dark and murky appearance (Rohmat et al., 2022 ).

In short, all three locations face geographical challenges worsened by inadequate water facility and flood mitigation infrastructures, particularly in the slum settlements. This has also been documented in the World Bank report that highlights the cities’ integrated flood risk management and practices (for full details, see World Bank Group, 2018 ).

Random selection of participants

Data collection took place between November 2021 and February 2022. We initially aimed to conduct random sampling based on the population registry. However, due to incomplete and outdated registry, we used a ‘random walk’ method to select a sample of adults aged 18 years and above from the general population of each city to be interviewed. Other criteria used for the sampling was a minimum residency of at least five years in the area. This requirement was implemented to garner a more profound understanding of individual’s flood experiences and the challenges they face in meeting their need for clean water. The procedures were as follows: First, the research team selected areas in each city that were considered slums, based on the respective mayoral decrees on slum settlements (Dinas PUPR Kota Bima, 2019 ; Provinsi Kalimantan Barat, 2020 ; Provinsi Sulawesi Utara, 2021 ). Then, they purposively selected sub-districts with higher exposure to water-related problems, such as pollution and frequent floods.

Second, the team obtained research permits and performed the ‘random walks’ by selecting a starting point near the local government office (e.g., sub-district office). Subsequently, we used a dice roll to determine the house to approach from the starting point, for example, selecting the second house. This number also served as an interval for moving to subsequent households until we reached our target sample size. If multiple eligible participants were present within a household, we selected the participant with the nearest birthdate to the survey date. Each selected participant was provided with brief information about the study and was asked for their active informed consent. The survey successfully reached out to 920 individuals but only 700 were able to participate: 300 from Pontianak and 200 each from Bima and Manado (see Table 2 ). Overall, the response rate is 76.42%.

This section elucidates the measures for individual resilience and relational wellbeing dimensions, as well as the two protective factors of individual resilience, namely family and community factors. To validate these measures, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedures utilising the following criteria: (1) we employed maximum likelihood (ML) estimation to confirm the relationships between factors and the configuration of measured indicators or items (Schmitt, 2011 ); (2) we utilised a combination of fit indices, specifically the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR), to assess the goodness of fit of the model. According to Hooper et al. ( 2008 ), a CFI exceeding 0.90 and a SRMR less than 0.08 indicate a valid model; (3) we adhered to Peterson’s ( 2000 ) recommendation for factor loading coefficients and set our threshold at a minimum of 0.40. We employed the ‘lavaan’ package in R to run the CFA (Rosseel, 2018 ); (4) Finally, we provide a description of the questions utilised to capture community resilience and individual characteristics.

We employed a measure of individual resilience based on Benard’s ( 1991 , 1999 ) conceptualisation, which encompasses four attributes: social competence, problem-solving skills, autonomy, and a sense of purpose and future. Since individual resilience is considered a trait by Benard ( 2004 ), the scale measures such dimensions in a general context but is applicable in various contexts. In detail, social competence dimension is concerned with the extent to which participants show appropriate social behaviours with items, such as “I am able to work with someone whose opinions differ from mine” and “I am able to defend my rights without offending others”. Next, the problem-solving skills dimension is focused on items that ask to what extent participants are able to think abstractly and be flexible in solving problems, such as “I can change the plan, if the plan fails” and “I try to solve a problem by discussing it with others”. Furthermore, the autonomy dimension refers to the extent participants are able to act independently and have a sense of control of their surroundings, with items such as “I can complete the task assigned to me” and “I take the initiative to solve problems that arise”. Finally, sense of purpose and future focuses on the extent to which participants show hope and engage in their future planning, with items such as “I have realistic plans and goals for my future” and “Adversity in life makes me desperate (negative item)”.

Initially, we started with 16 items distributed equally in four dimensions. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) found the measure is better suited as a two-factor scale. This was achieved by removing two items, one step at a time. The dimension of social competence was merged with problem solving, and the autonomy dimension was merged with a sense of purpose for the future. The two-factor scale sat well with the data as shown by the acceptable level of fit indices: CFI = 0.92, root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.09 and the standardized root mean squared (SRMR) = 0.05, which, according to Hu and Bentler ( 1999 ), can be considered valid. We obtained nine items for the social competence and problem-solving dimension and five items for the autonomy and sense of purpose and future dimension. These items had a moderate level of factor loadings, ranging from 0.49 to 0.65 (see Appendix 1 for a comprehensive overview of the validated measure).

Fornell and Larcker ( 1981 ) suggested average variance extracted (AVE) values can be used to assess convergent and discriminant validity. In terms of convergent validity, the two dimensions had AVE values of 0.31 and a composite reliability (CR) of 0.80 for social competence and problem-solving dimension, and AVE of 0.67 and CR of 0.91 for autonomy and sense of purpose and future dimension. For convergent validity, the AVE value should be greater than 0.50. Whereas for discriminant validity, the AVE values should be greater than the correlation coefficient between other constructs (see Table 2 ). However, when the value is lower, but is accompanied with a CR of at least 0.60, then the dimension can still be considered valid.

Finally, the two-factor scale was shown to be reliable across samples, with α = 0.91 for both dimensions. Later in the analysis, we computed the score of individual resilience by adding all the dimensions and divided them by the number of items ( N = 14) to maintain the score within its scale range.

The measure for relational wellbeing was developed by the authors using White’s ( 2010 ) theoretical framework on relational wellbeing, which delineates three primary overarching dimensions: subjective, material, and relational or social. The scale measures individuals’ evaluation towards their achievement which revolves around these dimensions. The material dimension encompasses aspects such as satisfaction with their current income, the subjective dimension includes factors such as religiosity and self-concept, and the relational dimension involves aspects such like family and community involvement, as well as security and competition (White, 2010 ). The scale was initially developed by Riasnugrahani et al. ( 2022 ) using the same dataset as the study. In the initial phase, they generated 58 items to measure various constructs, such as “I am a hard worker” to measure self-concept, “Practicing religious rituals is a way to get me strong in living through adversity” and “My religious beliefs have a great deal of influence on how I relate with others” to measure religiosity, “I can spend quality time with my family” to measure family and community involvement, and “I feel comfortable living in this neighbourhood” to measure security and competition. All these statements were rated on a six-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 “strongly disagree” to 6 “strongly agree”. Higher scores indicate more positive evaluations.

In its initial development, all items were combined using principal axis factoring to identify common variance among all items and unique variances between emerging factors (Schmitt, 2011 ). Their results demonstrates that, instead of three broad dimensions, the measure consists of six dimensions, namely: (1) family and community participation, (2) security and competition, (3) subjective material wellbeing, (4) public facility satisfaction, (5) religiosity and (6) self-concept. When compared against the subjective aspects of the relational wellbeing dimensions proposed by White ( 2010 ), we can categorize that family and community participation, security and competition, and public facility satisfaction fall within the relational dimension. Subjective material wellbeing, as its name indicates, refers to the material dimension. Whereas religiosity and self-concept fall within the subjective dimension.

Specifically for this study, we used CFA to validate the relational wellbeing scale that was developed earlier. The CFA model fits the data well with a slight adjustment to the number of factors. Since we started out with The six-factor scale showed an acceptable level of fit indices: CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.08 and SRMR = 0.07 (Hu & Bentler, 1999 ). Each dimension also showed moderate to high level of unstandardized factor loadings, ranging from 0.46 to 1.17. We also calculated alpha Cronbach to determine the reliability of each dimension. All dimensions showed a high level of reliability, ranging from 0.80 (self-concept) to 0.95 (security and competition). In total, we used seven items for family and community participation, five items for public facility satisfaction, four items for security and competition, as well as subjective material wellbeing and self-concept, and three items for religiosity.

Protective factors

According to Benard ( 2004 ), resilient people require a good family and community to protect them when they experience adversity. Protective factors are social system of individuals that reduce the likelihood of negative outcomes and help the development of resilience in individuals. Family and community are the two main protective factors shown to buffer the negative effect of a given adversity. Family and community with warm and caring relationships, high expectations and providing opportunities to participate will increase individual resilience.

Based on Benard’s ( 1991 ) findings on the aspects of protective factors, the scale measures to what extent individuals perceive their family and community they belong to provide caring, high expectation and opportunity to participate (Benard, 1991 ). We asked statements, such as “My family recognizes when I have problems” to measure caring in the family and “My family believes that I will succeed in life” to measure high expectation in the family. While statements such as “Apart from my family, the people around me care about me” was used to measure caring in the community, and “Apart from my family, other people encourage me to do my best” was used to measure high expectation in the community. All statements were rated on a six-point Likert scale. Table 3 provides the correlations between all measures employed in the study.

We conducted a CFA to test the validity of family and community protective factor measures. We first used a six-factor scale - with three factors for each level of protective factor. Several CFA runs confirmed a four-factor scale was better. High expectations were merged with caring relationships at the family and community levels meaning each protective factor for family and community had two dimensions, namely: (1) Caring and expectation and (2) opportunity and participation. The CFA shows a good-fit model: CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.09 and SRMR = 0.04. All factors also were shown to have high level of reliability, with α ranging from 0.87 (opportunity and participation from community) to 0.93 (caring and expectation from family). In total, we had eight items for caring and expectation from family relationship, six items for caring and expectation from community relationship, three items for opportunity and participation from community, and three items for opportunity and participation from family.

Later, we computed the composite score because the two dimensions have been demonstrated to be concomitant with each other in explaining a protective factor, and thus, both dimensions contribute in the same direction towards identifying each protective factor. A higher score indicates a stronger protective factor (Benard, 1991 ). We computed the composite score for each protective factor by calculating the average of the scores of all items (in each protective factor). The outcome yielded a single score for each family and community protective factor.

Using a CDRI framework (Joerin et al., 2014 ) as a guide to community resilience, we composed a measure assessing the five dimensions of community resilience based on relevant items available in the dataset. These dimensions include physical, social, economic, institutional, and natural aspects. The framework has been previously employed in studies assessing a city’s resilience to disasters in Asian contexts, such as Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (Wan Mohd Rani et al., 2018 ) and Chennai, India (Joerin et al., 2014 ).

In this study, the physical dimension pertains to the accessibility of public facilities, such as distance to a sub-district office, health centre, and hospital, as well as access to electricity, water resources, and sanitation facilities (Joerin et al., 2014 ). Items like “Minutes taken to reach a public health centre” and “Main source of lighting” represent the physical dimension. The social dimension focuses on the level of education and poverty rate. Items such as “Highest level of education completed” and “Proof of being below poverty rate” reflect the social dimension. The economic dimension encompasses household income, savings, and assets, such as motorcycles and refrigerators. Items like “Does any family member have savings in the form of money or goods?” and “Does this household own a motorcycle?” represent the economic dimension. The institutional dimension relates to individuals’ social interactions with local key figures and their evaluation of the impact of these figures (Kulig and Botey, 2016 ). Items like “Frequency of interaction with the head of the neighbourhood community” and “Perceived impact of the neighbourhood head” represent the institutional dimension. Lastly, the natural dimension considers individuals’ experiences and expectations regarding flood disasters, river contamination, and access to clean water. Items such as “Has flooding disrupted daily activities in the past five years (2016–2021)?” and “Do you expect flooding to disrupt daily activities in the next five years (2016–2021)?” represent the natural dimension. Participants were asked to evaluate all the aforementioned indicators, and higher scores indicate higher levels of resilience. The analysis was conducted based on the mean scores reported across all dimensions.

Individual characteristics

We assessed demographic information to ensure the relations under study would not be affected by individual characteristics. This covered participants’ age, gender, education and income levels as control variables. Age and gender measures were straightforward questions. Educational levels were determined by asking people’s highest level of education completed. This ranged from 1 for “Did not go to school” to 10 for “Doctoral degree”. Income levels were positioned by asking participants to estimate their average monthly income. This ranged from 1 as having “Lower than Rp. 1.000.000” to 10 as having “Larger than Rp. 10.000.000”.

To address our hypotheses, we performed a parallel mediation analysis using the lavaan package in R (Rosseel, 2018 ). This analysis is commonly employed to simultaneously test the coefficients of two or more mediators that independently predict the outcome variable (Agler and De Boeck, 2017 ). Table 1 provides the results of descriptive analysis that show significant differences between the three cities in terms of participants’ resilience F (2,697) = 304.10, p < 0.05. Pontianak had the highest level of individual resilience, whereas Manado comes last. We also observed significant differences in all other employed measures. Manado had a much higher level of income ( M = 7.99, SD = 18.56) but, in relation to the level of resilience, they had the lowest level ( M = 3.65, SD = 0.33).

Table 4 provides the initial pathway of the relationship between relational wellbeing and resilience (path c’ on individual resilience). We discovered partial evidence supporting the hypothesis that there are positive associations between relational wellbeing dimensions and individual resilience ( H 1). Specifically, we found that only family and community participation ( b = 0 .18, p < 0.001) and public facility satisfaction ( b = 0 .07, p = 0.01) were positively correlated with individual resilience. Based on these findings, we assert that H 1 is partially supported.

Furthermore, while controlling for age, gender, and community resilience dimensions, Table 4 illustrates the indirect relationships between relational wellbeing dimensions and individual resilience through family and community protective factors. The family protective factor was found to positively mediate most of the relational wellbeing dimensions and individual resilience, except for religiosity dimension ( b = −0.01, p = 0.06). Therefore, H2 is predominantly supported. Additionally, we computed the effect size for each significant indirect effect through the family protective factor using MBESS package in R (Preacher and Kelley, 2011 ). Using Cohen’s benchmarks to interpret effect size, all the significant indirect effects were found to have a small effect size, ranging from 0.01 to 0.06 (Fairchild et al., 2009 ).

Meanwhile, we observed an inconsistent mediation model (Mackinnon et al., 2000 ): The community protective factor was found to negatively mediate all the relations between relational wellbeing dimensions and individual resilience, except for religiosity ( b = 0.04, p = <0.001). This finding does not confirm H 3. Interestingly, this particular protective factor is associated with individual resilience ( b = −0.20, p = <0.001). However, when considering Cohen’s effect size definition, the inverse effect size is considered small to medium (Fairchild et al., 2009 ). Hence, even when individuals have positive relations between their relational wellbeing dimensions, such as their family and community participation and religiosity, and their individual resilience, those who are actively involved in their community may experience a decreased level of individual resilience.

Additionally, we noticed that the indirect relationship between religiosity and individual resilience via community protective factor remains positive ( b = 0.04, p = < 0 .001). Further calculations were conducted to test whether the presence of a weaker community protective factor reduces the positive relation between religiosity and individual resilience. The results are presented in Appendix 2 . Here, we find that there is a negative interaction between religiosity and the community protective factor on individual resilience ( b = −0.11, p = <0.001). In other words, the slope of the relationship between religiosity and individual resilience is decreased by the negative interaction.

In addition, our analysis indicates that gender is not significantly associated with individual resilience. However, the findings reveal that age is negatively correlated with individual resilience ( b = −0.00, p = 0.003). However, the coefficient is too small so we should be careful in inferring such relation. Finally, our analysis indicates that only economic ( b = 0.16, p = <0.001) and natural ( b = 0.38, p = <0.001) dimensions are positively associated with individual resilience.

Figure 1 provides a visualization of mediational relations of family and community protective factors on the relation between relational wellbeing and individual resilience.

*Bold indicates significance at p < 0.05. Path c (IV-DV) is omitted for the sake of visibility.

Discussion and conclusion

This study examined the relational dimensions of individual wellbeing and resilience mediated by family and community protective factors. We found that family protective factors positively mediated most of the relational dimensions of individual wellbeing and resilience, except for the religiosity dimension. On the other hand, societal protective factors negatively mediated all relationships between the relational dimensions of wellbeing and individual resilience.

We begin by discussing how the family protective factor serves as a positive mediator between relational wellbeing dimensions and resilience. Specifically, the findings demonstrate that individuals who positively assess their family and community participation, their sense of security and competition in their neighbourhood, their current financial circumstances, their satisfaction with public facilities, and their self-concept are likely to engage positively with their family. This positive interaction involves exchanging care, expectations, and opportunities for growth, which in turn helps them develop a higher level of individual resilience. According to Chaigneau et al. ( 2022 ), relational wellbeing is a source of resilience. Individuals who have their needs met and have a good quality of life may be more resilient than those who do not. Resilience can be enhanced by providing social support and access to knowledge and resources. Resources from family and society can be protective factors for individuals. Benard ( 2004 ) argued that family protective factors, such as warm relationships and opportunities to contribute, can make individuals feel loved, safe and competent. Therefore, if they face difficulties in life, they can obtain help, bounce back, and be better equipped to solve their problems and show more resilience. We can safely conclude that relational wellbeing is interrelated with individuals’ development of positive family relationships, which then positively relates to their ability to face difficult times.

The negative relationship between religiosity and the community protective factor was unexpected. However, considering the impact of religion, it can be understood that religion can have both positive and negative impacts on individuals, families and communities (Dollahite et al., 2018 ). Religion can have positive impacts if it promotes tolerance and harmony. It can have negative impacts, if it promotes prejudice and intolerance (Donahue and Nielsen, 2005 ). In Indonesia, religious identity plays a crucial role in many aspects of life, including policy-making and educational curriculum (Bruinessen, 2018 ; French et al., 2008 ). In terms of personal life, the impact of having high level of religiosity has also been shown to reflect individuals’ use of religious coping in dealing stressful life circumstances (Aflakseir and Mahdiyar, 2016 ). Religious coping refers to the use of religious beliefs and/or rituals in times of hardships. Those who employ religious coping strategies are reported to feel less pressure to manage their circumstances and fret about the outcomes. This is similar to the term “surrendering to God” in times of adversity (Wong-Mcdonald and Gorsuch, 2000 ). Surrendering to God is based on the assumption that one has reached a point where they believe that human efforts are no longer sufficient and, thus, only God has control over one’s problems. In both terms, there is an active act in solving the problems, which are often directed to follow more strictly their religious beliefs and practices. Considering that participants in our study face constant daily life challenges while living in disaster-prone areas, people are likely to turn to surrendering to God rather than being actively engaged in their community, for instance, in collective efforts to reduce flood risks. However, it is important to note that this assumption may overlook other variables that play a role in reducing flood risks or ameliorating living conditions, such as local government policies. Nevertheless, within the scope of the present study, we can infer that religiosity may indeed induce individuals to focus on surrendering to God, and consequently, diminishing the relevance of their community protective factor.

As a result, the community protective factor negatively mediates the relationship between relational wellbeing dimensions and resilience. This result is not in line with previous research, which suggests that people who receive attention and support and have the opportunity to participate in society will feel supported and accepted (Jain and Cohen, 2013 ). Those who receive such support from their neighbourhood or community have been shown to be better in solving problems, gaining insight and dealing with hardships (Benard, 2004 ). We offer three explanations for this contradiction.

First, community protective factor is a multi-functional concept which can have different impacts individually, depending on people’s areas of life (e.g., academic, career, or mental health). For example, individual’s development of their capacity to solve problems without experiencing anxiety is highly related to family support (Benard, 1993 ; Rothon et al., 2012 ), while social capital is less prominent (Rothon et al., 2012 ). In addition, opportunities for individuals to participate and be involved in activities in society are not always positively related to their mental health (Rothon et al., 2012 ), unless their participation is purely voluntary or driven by their intrinsic motivation (Kim and Morgül, 2017 ).

Second, there might be a confounding variable between community protective factors and resilience that might have played a role among participants – this being collective efficacy. According to Yu et al. ( 2022 ), collective efficacy drives disaster preparedness at the individual level. When people face large-scale problems, such as natural disasters, the perceived collective efficacy is likely to play a significant role in motivating individuals to be resilient and prepare to take protective actions. We argue that community protective factors should provide social support and also encourage individuals to take actions by providing opportunities, knowledge and collective efficacy. Only then can individuals utilize their community protective factors and avoid being over-reliant on community support. This buffers the risks of creating a false sense of security and reluctance in anticipating future outlook (Sarason et al., 1983 ; Babcicky and Seebauer, 2020 ).

Third, according to Lee et al. ( 2022 ), types of social support that are non-empowering (i.e., offering only short-term and immediate solutions) or assistance that provide the “recipient a complete solution to a problem” (dependency-oriented) can cause psychological harm by creating feelings of dependency and incompetence (Koo et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, Gray et al. ( 2020 ) argued that community support, which is inadequacy-implied support, makes the recipient feel inadequate or incompetent and this feeling is the opposite of resilience.

These three explanations mean we concluded that any protective factor, particularly community protective ones, are related to individual resilience when individuals act actively to learn and develop those skills and knowledge required to overcome difficulties in any given time of their life.

Several limitations of our study need to be acknowledged. Firstly, the study focused solely on locations in urban areas. Although this is key to understanding individuals’ adaptation in ever-increasing ecological change in their living area, many settlements in rural areas in Indonesia are also experiencing the impacts of climate change (World Bank Group and Global Water Security and Sanitation Partnership, 2021 ). Therefore, future studies should consider expanding the locations to provide a urban-rural comparison in individuals’ relational wellbeing and their resilience. Secondly, the current study did not involve specific types of community activities in their locations. Therefore, we were unable to compare different activities in their relations to individual resilience. Thirdly, we acknowledge that most of the significant coefficients obtained in the study are rather small, ranging from −0.02 to 0.39 (see Table 4 ). While these findings suggest a weak relation with the predictor in terms of statistical significance, we still consider these relations to be significant because they are unlikely to occur by chance. However, in terms of practical significance, we acknowledge that all the statistically significant indirect effects of relational wellbeing dimensions through family and community protective factors are rather weak. This indicates that there may be other plausible mediators that could more strongly explain the relations of interest. Finally, as our participants live in disaster-prone areas, relying solely on a cross-sectional data, inhibited us from drawing any inference on the changes that might occur during ‘normal times’ and ‘flooding periods’. Therefore, future studies should pursue further data collection, especially during flooding periods, to see the complex interplay between individuals’ relational wellbeing and their individual resilience, while still taking account of their family and community conditions.

Nevertheless, we believe that our research offers important contributions for the extant literature on slum communities and resilience. Our findings contribute to an improved understanding of the complex intertwining of wellbeing and resilience, especially by which family and community supports relate to individuals’ adaptability in their slum communities. Finally, these findings can offer valuable insights for policymakers in crafting family-oriented interventions that foster resilience and leverage community resources to facilitate the positive development of individuals. This could involve providing opportunities for individuals to acquire essential skills for self-sufficiency and adaptability within their environment. Through fostering positive experiences within families and communities, such interventions have the potential to empower individuals, enhancing their sense of agency. This, in turn, may enable them to more effectively regulate their needs, strategize on achieving their goals, and critically reflect on their progress in pursuing them (Bandura, 2018 ).

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the online archiving system repository. We have deposited the dataset for this study on DANS platform at https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-z5q-d3ae .

Aflakseir A, Mahdiyar M (2016) The role of religious coping strategies in predicting depression among a sample of women with fertility problems in Shiraz. J Reprod Infertil 17(2):117–122

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Agler R, De Boeck P (2017) On the interpretation and use of mediation: multiple perspectives on mediation analysis. Front Psychol 8:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01984

Article Google Scholar

Armitage D, Béné C, Charles AT, Johnson D, Allison EH (2012) The interplay of well-being and resilience in applying a social- ecological perspective. Ecol Soc 17(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04940-170415

Babcicky P, Seebauer S (2020) Collective efficacy and natural hazards: differing roles of social cohesion and task-specific efficacy in shaping risk and coping beliefs. J Risk Res 23(6):695–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1628096

Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Manado (2022) Kota Manado Dalam Angka. https://manadokota.bps.go.id/publication.html

Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Pontianak (2022) Kota Pontianak Dalam Angka 2022. In BPS Kota Pontianak. https://pontianakkota.bps.go.id/publication/2022/02/25/125ffb2696a0108f62d7d6f0/kota-pontianak-dalam-angka-2022.html

Bandura A (2018) Toward a psychology of human agency: pathways and reflections. Perspect Psychol Sci 13(2):130–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280

Article MathSciNet PubMed Google Scholar

Benard B (1991) Fostering resiliency in kids: protective factors in the family, school, and community. In Western Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities (pp. 1–27)

Benard B (1993) Fostering resiliency in kids. Educ Leadersh 51(3):44–48

Google Scholar

Benard B (1997) Turning it around for all youth: from risk to resilience. ERIC/CUE Dig 126:1–7

ADS Google Scholar

Benard B (1999) Applications of resilience: possibilities and promise. Resilience and Development: Positive Life Adaptations, 269–277

Benard B (2004) Resiliency: What We Have Learned. WestEd

Berkes F, Ross H (2013) Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. Soc Nat Resour 26(1):5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605

Bronfenbrenner U (1986) Ecology of the family as a context for human development: research perspectives. Dev Psychol 22(6):723–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723

Bruinessen MV (2018) Indonesian Muslims in a globalising world: Westernisation, arabisation and indigenising responses. The RSIS Working Paper series, (311)

Chaigneau T, Coulthard S, Daw TM, Szaboova L, Camfield L, Chapin FS, Gasper D, Gurney GG, Hicks CC, Ibrahim M, James T, Jones L, Matthews N, McQuistan C, Reyers B, Brown K (2022) Reconciling well-being and resilience for sustainable development. Nat Sustain 5(4):287–293. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00790-8

Chapin FS, Kofinas GP, Folke C (2009) Principles of ecosystem stewardship: Resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-Based Natural Resource Management in a Changing World, 1–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73033-2

Chaudhuri S (2015) Urban poor, economic opportunities and sustainable development through traditional knowledge and practices. Glob Bioeth 26(2):86–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2015.1037141

Article MathSciNet Google Scholar

Darling Rasmussen P, Storebø OJ, Løkkeholt T, Voss LG, Shmueli-Goetz Y, Bojesen AB, Simonsen E, Bilenberg N (2019) Attachment as a core feature of resilience: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Rep 122(4):1259–1296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118785577

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Diener E, Suh EM, Lucas RE, Smith HL (1999) Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychol Bull 125(2):276–302

Dinas PUPR Kota Bima (2019) SK Penetapan Lokasi Kawasan Perumahan dan Pemukiman Kumuh Kota Bima

Dollahite DC, Marks LD, Dalton H (2018) Why religion helps and harms families: a conceptual model of a system of dualities at the nexus of faith and family life. J Fam Theory Rev 10(1):219–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12242

Donahue MJ, Nielsen, ME (2005) Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (Paloutzian RF, Park CL Eds). The Guilford Press

Eachus P (2014) Community resilience: is it greater than the sum of the parts of individual resilience? Procedia Econ Financ 18:345–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00949-6

Fairchild JA, MacKinnon PD, Taborga PM, Taylor BA (2009) R2 effect-size measures for mediation analysis. Behav Res Methods 41(2):486–498. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.486.R

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Ferreira RJ, Buttell F, Cannon C (2020) COVID-19: Immediate predictors of individual resilience. Sustainability (Switz) 12(16):1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166495

Article CAS Google Scholar

Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50. http://www.jstor.org

Fredrickson BL, Joiner T (2002) Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychol Sci 13(2):172–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00431

French DC, Eisenberg N, Vaughan J, Purwono U, Suryanti TA (2008) Religious involvement and the social competence and adjustment of Indonesian Muslim adolescents. Dev Psychol 44(2):597–611. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.597

Gillam C, Charles A (2018) Fishers in a Brazilian Shantytown: relational wellbeing supports recovery from environmental disaster. Mar Policy 89:77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.12.008

González-Riancho P, Gerkensmeier B, Ratter BMW, González M, Medina R (2015) Storm surge risk perception and resilience: a pilot study in the German North Sea coast. Ocean Coast Manag 112:44–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.004

Gray CE, Spector PE, Lacey KN, Young BG, Jacobsen ST, Taylor MR (2020) Helping may be Harming: unintended negative consequences of providing social support. Work Stress 34(4):359–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2019.1695294

Hascher T, Beltman S, Mansfield C (2021) Teacher wellbeing and resilience: towards an integrative model. Educ Res 63(4):416–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2021.1980416

Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR (2008) Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods 6(1):53–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.58

Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Jain S, Cohen AK (2013) Behavioral adaptation among youth exposed to community violence: a longitudinal multidisciplinary study of family, peer and neighborhood-level protective factors. Prev Sci 14(6):606–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0344-8

Jawapos (2017) Dibangun Waterfront, Pinggir Kapuas Jadi Jantung Pontianak. Jawapos. https://www.jawapos.com/berita-sekitar-anda/01108949/dibangun-waterfront-pinggir-kapuas-jadi-jantung-pontianak

Joerin J, Shaw R, Takeuchi Y, Krishnamurthy R (2014) The adoption of a climate disaster resilience index in Chennai, India. Disasters 38(3):540–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12058

Juang LP, Simpson JA, Lee RM, Rothman AJ, Titzmann PF, Schachner MK, Korn L, Heinemeier D, Betsch C (2018) Using attachment and relational perspectives to understand adaptation and resilience among immigrant and refugee youth. Am Psychol 73(6):797–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000286

Katsumata M, Mohanan SA (2020) The Influence of Self-Concept on Resilience Being Mediated by Self-Compassion and Compassion for Others Among Thai Adolescents

Kim J, Morgül K (2017) Long-term consequences of youth volunteering: Voluntary versus involuntary service. Soc Sci Res 67:160–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.05.002

Kimhi S (2016) Levels of resilience: associations among individual, community, and national resilience. J Health Psychol 21(2):164–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105314524009

Koay WI, Dillon D (2020) Community gardening: stress, well-being, and resilience potentials. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(18):1–31. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186740

Koo M, Jung S, Palmeira M, Kim K (2023) The timing of help: receiving help toward the end (vs. beginning) undermines psychological ownership and subjective well-being. J Personal Soc Psychol 124(4):772–795. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000403

Kovács KE, Dan B, Hrabéczy A, Bacskai K, Pusztai G (2022) Is resilience a trait or a result of parental involvement? The results of a systematic literature review. Educ Sci 12(6):372. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060372

Kulig J, Botey AP (2016) Facing a wildfire: What did we learn about individual and community resilience? Nat Hazards 82(3):1919–1929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2277-1

Lee YE, Simon LS, Koopman J, Rosen CC, Gabriel AS, Yoon S (2022) When, why, and for whom is receiving help actually helpful? Differential effects of receiving empowering and nonempowering help based on recipient gender. J Appl Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001049

Lester L, Cefai C, Cavioni V, Barnes A, Cross D (2020) A whole-school approach to promoting staff wellbeing. Aust J Teach Educ 45(2):1–23. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2020v45n2.1

Mackinnon DP, Krull JL, Lockwood CM (2000) Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. In Prevention Science (Vol. 1, Issue 4)

Marenco-Escuderos AD, Ramos-Vidal I, Palacio-Sañudo JE, Rambal-Rivaldo LI (2020) Community participation and empowerment in a post-disaster environment: differences tied to age and personal networks of social support. Front Psychol 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01802

Masten AS (2021) Resilience of children in disasters: a multisystem perspective. Int J Psychol 56(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12737

Mccubbin LD, Mccubbin HI, Zhang W, Kehl L, Strom I (2013) Relational well-being: an indigenous perspective and measure. Fam Relat 62(2):354–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12007

Mguni N, Bacon N, Brown JF (2012) The wellbeing and resilience paradox. The Young Foundation, London

Miller-Graff LE (2022) The multidimensional taxonomy of individual resilience. Trauma Violence Abus 23(2):660–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020967329

Mische A (2015) Relational sociology, culture, and agency. In The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 80–98). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294413.n7

Nguyen HL, Akerkar R (2020) Modelling, measuring, and visualising community resilience: a systematic review. Sustainability (Switz) 12(19):1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12197896

Nguyen KV, James H (2013) Measuring household resilience to floods: a case study in the Vietnamese Mekong River Delta. Ecol Soc 18(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05427-180313

Nurlatifah A, Purwaningsih A, Djundjunan J, Indonesia B (2018) Kajian Banjir Bandang Di Bima Menggunakan Data Gsmap (Study of Flash Flood in Bima Using Gsmap Data). Ber Dirgant 19(1):7–12. http://digilib.mercubuana.ac.id/manager/t!@file_artikel_abstrak/Isi_Artikel_480677627054.pdf

OECD (2011) How’s life? Measuring well-being. In How’s Life?: Measuring Well-Being (Vol. 9789264121). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264121164-en

Paton D, Johnston D (2001) Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness. Disaster Prev Manag Int J 10(4):270–277. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005930

Peterson RA (2000) A meta-analysis of variance accounted for and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis. Mark Lett 11(3):261–275. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008191211004

Preacher KJ, Kelley K (2011) Effect size measures for mediation models: quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychol Methods 16(2):93–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022658

Purnomo S, Mulki GZ, Firdaus H (2019) Pemetaan Rawan Banjir di Kecamatan Pontianak Barat dan Pontianak Kota Berbasis Sistem Iinformasi Geografis (SIG). J PWK Laut Sipil Tambang 6(2):1–7. https://doi.org/10.26418/jelast.v6i2.34829

Putra A (2016) Duka Bima dan Sumbawa 2016: Pahami Karakteristik Bencana Jadi Kunci Minimalisasi Dampak. Parangtritis Geomaritime Science Park

Provinsi Kalimantan Barat (2020) SK Kumuh Kota Pontianak Tahun 2020

Provinsi Sulawesi Utara (2021) SK Kota Manado Penetapan Lokasi Perumahan Kumuh dan Pemukiman Kumuh

Rentschler JE, Klaiber C, Vun J (2021, April 14) Floods in the neighborhood: Mapping poverty and flood risk in Indonesian cities. Preventionweb. https://www.preventionweb.net/es/node/16783

Riasnugrahani M, Setiawan T, Rahmani K (2022) Skala Kebahagiaan Relasional

Rohmat D, Irawan ED, Rohmat FIW, Harjupa W, Husna A, Rohmat FIW, Alvando PV, Rohmat FIW, Lugina IMA, Rabbi MFA, Gunawan T (2022) Penyediaan Air Berkelanjutan Untuk Permukiman Kumuh di Indonesia

Rokib M (2021) Dikenal Sebagai Kota Seribu Parit, Pemkot Pontianak Terus Lakukan Penataan Hingga Jadi Objek Wisata. Tribun Pontianak. https://pontianak.tribunnews.com/2021/10/23/dikenal-sebagai-kota-seribu-parit-pemkot-pontianak-terus-lakukan-penataan-hingga-jadi-objek-wisata

Rosseel Y (2018) The lavaan tutorial. In The Lavaan tutorial (pp. 1–37). 10.1002/cd

Rothon C, Goodwin L, Stansfeld S (2012) Family social support, community “social capital” and adolescents’ mental health and educational outcomes: a longitudinal study in England. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 47(5):697–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-011-0391-7

Ryff CD (1995) Psychological well-being in adult life. Curr Directions Psychol Sci 4(4):99–104. 10.1111%2F1467-8721.ep10772395

Ryff CD (2013) Psychological well-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychother Psychosom 83(1):10–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000353263

Sabu S (2022) Banjir Bandang Dahsyat Terjang Manado 15 Januari 2014 Lalu. Sindonews Com 1:0–3. https://daerah.sindonews.com/read/657435/193/banjir-bandang-dahsyat-terjang-manado-15-januari-2014-lalu-1642219272

Sarason IG, Levine HM, Basham RB, Sarason BR (1983) Assessing social support: the Social Support Questionnaire. J Personal Soc Psychol 44(1):127–139. 10.1037//0022-3514.44.1.127

Schmitt TA (2011) Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. J Psychoeduc Assess 29(4):304–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406653

Schwalm FD, Zandavalli RB, de Castro Filho ED, Lucchetti G (2022) Is there a relationship between spirituality/religiosity and resilience? A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. J Health Psychol 27(5):1218–1232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320984537

Setiawan T, Jong E De, Takwin B, Riasnugrahani M, Primaldhi A, Walandouw P, Rahmani K (2022) RISE - Resilience and Wellbeing Preliminary Survey 2021 Comparative data on three. Fakultas Psikologi, Universitas Kristen Maranatha

SMERU, PROSPERA, UNDP, UNICEF (2021) Analysis of the social and economic impacts of COVID-19 on households and strategic policy recommendations for Indonesia. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 1–65

Southwick SM, Bonanno GA, Masten AS, Panter-Brick C, Yehuda R (2014) Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: interdisciplinary perspectives. Eur J Psychotraumat 5. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338

Syarifudin (2021, December 13) Kota Bima Dilanda Banjir, 21 Kelurahan Terendam dan 1 Orang Hilang. Kompas. https://regional.kompas.com/read/2021/12/13/222000878/kota-bima-dilanda-banjir-21-kelurahan-terendam-dan-1-orang-hilang?page=all

Treuthart MP (1991) Adopting a more realistic definition of “family”. Gonzaga Law Rev 26(1):91–124

Twigg J (2009) Characteristics of a Disaster—Resilient Community. In International Journal of Production Research (Vol. 7, Issue 2). University College London

UN-Habitat (2003) The challenge of slums: Global report on human settlements 2003. In UN-Habitat. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913250502900122

Wan Mohd Rani WNM, Kamarudin KH, Razak KA, Che Hasan R, Mohamad Z (2018) Measuring urban resilience using climate disaster resilience index (CDRI). Int Arch Photogramm, Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 42(4/W9):237–242. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-W9-237-2018

White SC (2010) Analysing wellbeing: a framework for development practice. Dev Pract 20(2):158–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520903564199

White SC (2015) Relational wellbeing: a theoretical and operational approach. In Bath Papers in International Development and Wellbeing (Vol. 43)

White SC (2017) Relational wellbeing: re-centering the politics of happiness, policy and the self. Policy Polit 45(2):121–136. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557317X14866576265970

White SC, Jha S (2023) Exploring the relational in relational wellbeing. Soc Sci 12(11):600. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12110600

Wong-Mcdonald A, Gorsuch RL (2000) Surrender to God: an additional coping style? J Psychol Theol 28(2):149–161

World Bank Group (2018) Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management practices in Indonesia

World Bank Group, Global Water Security & Sanitation Partnership (2021) Indonesia: Vision 2045 Towards Water Security

Yu J, Sim T, Qi W (2022) Informal social support and disaster preparedness: mediating roles of perceived collective efficacy and self-efficacy. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 68:102734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102734

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Kristen Maranatha, Bandung, Indonesia

Missiliana Riasnugrahani & Tery Setiawan

Department of Anthropology and Development Studies, Faculty of Social Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

Tery Setiawan & Edwin de Jong

Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia

Bagus Takwin

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to each phase of the publication, including conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, and writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tery Setiawan .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the authors’ university. The data collection process had been reviewed and granted permission from The Directorate General of Politics and General Administration from The Ministry of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia (470.02/7428/Polpum) and by the Research Ethical Committee of Universitas Kristen Maranatha (No.134/KEP/X/2022).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants by requesting them to sign the written informed consent prior to guided interview.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Riasnugrahani, M., Setiawan, T., de Jong, E. et al. A dual pathway for understanding the relation between wellbeing and resilience. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 937 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03440-4

Download citation

Received : 14 August 2023

Accepted : 08 July 2024

Published : 19 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03440-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

The Difference Between Empathy and Sympathy

Psychiatric Medical Care Communications Team

How Does Increasing Our Empathy Help Those At Risk for Suicide?

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, suicide rates have steadily increased in the United States from 2000 to 2016. With suicide rates rising, it is vital to look at behaviors that help reduce the risk of suicide attempts and death by suicide.

Studies have shown that how we relate to people at risk of suicide is vital to suicide prevention planning. Mental health professionals stress the importance of an empathetic response when dealing with a person in crisis. However, many people are not certain what that means. Most people do not work in mental health and are simply trying to help a friend or loved one.

When we talk about supporting a person during tough times, we sometimes use the words “sympathy” and “empathy” interchangeably. Therapists have determined that not only do these two words have vastly different meanings, but how we show “sympathy” or “empathy” are quite different. Let us explore the differences between empathy and sympathy and discuss what makes empathy a better behavior for relating with someone struggling.

Sympathy Creates Separation

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines sympathy as “the feeling that you care about and are sorry about someone else’s trouble, grief, misfortune, etc.” There are many times when sympathy is an appropriate emotion for a difficult situation. However, sympathy separates you from the person struggling.

Brene Brown describes sympathy as a way to stay out of touch with our own emotions and make our connections transactional. Sympathy puts the person struggling in a place of judgment more than understanding. A person seeks to make sense of a situation or look at it from their own perspective.

When a person is sympathetic, they may give helpful advice or look upon someone with pity. They often feel relieved that they are not in the same struggle, and they ignore triggers or difficult feelings that arise from the situation. The person struggling may not feel listened to or “heard.”

Sometimes sympathy is the appropriate response. When someone you do not know well experiences a loss, you might send a sympathy card. When two people are not remarkably close, sympathy shows caring but keeps an appropriate social distance.

Whether it is a casual acquaintance or someone from work, gestures of sympathy are a social response to a personal crisis. It acknowledges another person’s hurt while maintaining the social norms necessary for the relationship to function. When a relationship is not intimate or close, sympathy is the appropriate response. However, with a close friend or family member, we should strive for empathy in our communication.

Empathy Fosters Connection

Empathy is defined as “the feeling that you understand and share another person’s experiences and emotions” or “the ability to share someone else’s feelings.” It is looking at things from another person’s perspective and attempting to understand why they feel the way they do.

Empathy is not easy. It requires a tremendous amount of vulnerability to listen without judgment and see yourself in another person’s struggle. Empathy can be uncomfortable especially when you are supporting someone in a dark time.

Empathy is not about how to fix another person but about listening to another person’s pain and sharing their difficult thoughts and feelings. People at risk for suicide often express loneliness and pain through their words and actions. They feel as if no one can understand their struggle. When you express empathy to them, it lessens their feelings of being misunderstood and judged.

Sometimes expressing empathy is looking into the mirror of your own emotions. It requires you to acknowledge that no one is immune from challenging times. As you dig deep, you find that we are not so different. This realization can be communicated to your loved ones to help them through their pain.

By expressing empathy to your loved ones, you are inviting them into your inner world. When they see that you have struggles of your own, it makes them feel connected. This connection allows them to trust you and share what they are feeling. Empathy creates connection and understanding. Connection and understanding encourage those struggling with mental health to seek help and support from their trusted peers.

The Differences Between Empathy and Sympathy

Now that we understand the definition of empathy and sympathy. Let us discuss their differences so that we can display the appropriate emotion at the appropriate time. The difference between empathy and sympathy is found in how we relate to the other person. Empathy is shown in how much compassion and understanding we can give to another. Sympathy is more of a feeling of pity for another. Empathy is our ability to understand how someone feels while sympathy is our relief in not having the same problems.

When we relate with empathy, we give the other person space to own their emotions and feelings. We reflect on what they are feeling and provide a safe space for all emotions, even negative ones. When we relate with sympathy, we move into problem-solving mode. We have ideas and judgments about how the person feels and what they should do. This not only minimizes the person’s problems, but it ignores their feelings.

Sympathy comes from our ego. It is what we know we should do, and often, it is telling others what to do or feel as well. Empathy comes from the heart. It is feeling another’s pain and sharing a human experience. Everyone wants to be accepted and understood, and empathy fosters those feelings in the person sharing and the person listening.

Another main difference between empathy and sympathy is that empathy is an appropriate emotion at any time. Showing empathy will bring you closer to others no matter what the circumstances. Where sympathy is only exhibited during tough times, being empathetic is an attitude we can adopt at any time.

How Can We Exhibit More Empathy for Those Struggling?

Empathy is more than a feeling; it is actionable steps that show you care. But how do we show empathy to others? How should we show up for our loved ones in times of grief or struggle?

There is no set way to show empathy just like there is no set way to have a relationship. However, they are simple behaviors that create an empathetic space for others in all circumstances.

Here are some tips for showing empathy from Mental Health First Aid . All of them involve how we listen to the other person.

Listen Without Judgement- Empathy involves listening-active listening to understand what the other person is trying to say. A person who needs help is at their most vulnerable when they ask for it. Connecting with them by showing how they are feeling, and thinking is a vital empathetic skill.
Listen With Intention-Active listening means that your full undivided attention is on the other person. You are facing them, hands still, and looking them in the eyes. You do not allow yourself to be distracted by your phone, the television, or other people.
Listen Without Advice-Do not take away the person’s sharing power by telling them what to do or how to do it. Let them talk and come to their own conclusions. If they ask for advice, ask them what they think they should do first. Doing this reminds the person that they are not hopeless and can find their own solutions.
Listen With Understanding- Affirm what the other person is feeling even if you do not agree or understand it. Foster trust by accepting the person’s feelings and accepting them. Let them work their feelings in their own way which if you are following the previous suggestions should be easy.
Listen With Vulnerability-If you have a similar experience to the person sharing, consider sharing your experience with them. Share your feelings about your experience and how it made you feel so that the person does not feel so alone in their feelings.

By self-checking our own empathy for others' pain, we can slowly start to rebuild the connections that we have lost with others and make current connections even stronger. Being supportive, understanding, and compassionate are the building blocks of preventative care for all individuals, both young and old.

Talk of suicide should never be dismissed. If you, or someone you know, is thinking of suicide call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 or text 988.

Geriatric Mental Health
Inpatient Psychiatry
Mental Health Awareness

If you or someone you know is in need of a behavioural health placement, behavioural health referral, or experiencing a mental health emergency or crisis, please do not use this website. Instead, use these crisis resources to speak with someone now or access local support.

Request another

Follow class ace :.

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

The Limits of GenAI Educators

Jared Cooney Horvath

Three fundamental problems with using LLMs as teachers, tutors, and trainers.

While generative AI tools have been heralded as the future of education, more than 40 years of academic research suggests that it could also harm learning in realms from online tutoring to employee training for three reasons. First, the best student-teacher relationships are empathetic ones but it is biologically impossible for humans and AI to develop mutual empathy. Second, AI might help us bypass the boring task of knowledge accumulation but it is only through that process that we develop higher order thinking skills. Finally, digital tools are notoriously distracting and multitasking diminishes learning. As we think about the benefits of new technology, we must also consider the risks.

Since the widely acclaimed release of ChatGPT 4, generative AI has been touted by many as the savior of education. Case in point: British education expert Sir Anthony Seldon has predicted that by 2027, AI will replace human teachers on a global scale.

Jared Cooney Horvath (PhD, MEd) is a neuroscientist, educator, and author of the best-selling book Stop Talking, Start Influencing: 12 Insights from Brain Science to Make Your Message Stick . He has conducted research and lectured at Harvard University, Harvard Medical School, the University of Melbourne, and more than 750 schools internationally and currently serves as director of LME Global.

Partner Center

IMAGES

EMPATHY is the most important leadership skill needed today!
The Art of Empathetic Problem Solving
Mastering Problem-Solving with Observation and Empathy
PPT
Six Strategies for Building Empathy in the Classroom
Why Does Empathy Matter in Problem-Solving?

VIDEO

Empathy and knowing the problem you're solving are core to design (and making something people want)
Empathy for those struggling with addiction
Empathy and Problem-Solving in Relationships
Empathy in Conflict: Understanding Leads to Resolution
Sympathy vs Empathy in Therapy
The Relationship Between Empathy And Psychological Capital: A Systematic Literature Review

COMMENTS

Relationship Between the Problem-Solving Skills and Empathy ...
room nurses and to explore the factors that relate to these two competencies. Methods This is a cross-sectional, descriptive study. Study data were gathered using a personal information form, the Interpersonal Problem Solving Inventory, and the Basic Empathy Scale (N = 80). Descriptive and comparative statistics were employed to evaluate the study data. Results Age, marital status, and career ...
Relationship Between the Problem-Solving Skills and Empathy ...
Background: The use of empathy in problem solving and communication is a focus of nursing practice and is of great significance in raising the quality of patient care. Purpose: The purposes of this study are to investigate the relationship between problem solving and empathy among operating room nurses and to explore the factors that relate to these two competencies.
How to Empathize: Resist Being a Problem Solver
When we are upset we want empathy, period. Not the laundry list of things we need, could, or should do. Not yet, and maybe not ever. At the very least we need to pause and listen, the longer the ...
Empathy in Problem Solving
A high quality of thinking with empathy (so your understanding is relevant, accurate, and deep) is extremely important for defining and solving most problems. But not all problems, because empathy is not very important (or at least it's different) for problem-solving objectives in two categories, when your problem either (1) involves mainly you ...
The role of empathy in problem construction and creative problem solving
It was found that the relationship between empathy and solution quality was mediated by problem restatement quality when controlling for fluency. The standardized regression coefficient between empathy and problem restatement quality (path a) was significant (β = 0.11, p < .01) (Table 4).
(PDF) Relationship Between the Problem-Solving Skills and Empathy
Background: The use of empathy in problem solving and communication is a focus of nursing practice and is of great significance in raising the quality of patient care. Purpose: The purposes of ...
PDF Relationship Between the Problem-Solving Skills and Empathy Skills of
Relationship Between the Problem-Solving ... ings in theliteratureaddressthe relationship between problem-solving skills and empathy skills in operating room nurses. Today, the healthcare system ...
The Art of Empathetic Problem Solving
The Art of Empathetic Problem Solving. As a leader, we are often called upon to problem solve with a customer or someone on our team. While most of us consider ourselves crack problem solvers, after all it is hard to get where we have without knowing how to solve problems, there is always more to learn and opportunities to do better.
Are you solving the real problem? Why empathy matters
This is why empathy matters. Empathy is the key for finding the real problem that lies at the heart of your user's experience. It validates that your organisation is solving a problem that needs to be solved, and your solutions will ultimately improve or enrich their lives. In this blog post we will take a look at two major signs of a lack of ...
30 Empathy-Related Interview Questions (Plus Sample Answers)
Here are two sample answers to empathetic interview questions hiring managers may ask: 1. Can you tell me about a time you used empathy to solve a problem? The hiring manager may ask this question to learn more about how you combine empathy and problem-solving. You can use empathy to learn more about others and find intuitive ways to solve ...
Problem solving is the enemy of empathy
Empathy connects us to others' pain. Problem solving is one of the most common blocks, and it can be hard to notice because most of the time problem solving is a pro social behaviour. Problem solving is an emotional intelligence skill. This comic is really great. In coaching we resist the impulse to offer solutions to the challenges our ...
Problem Solving Versus Empathy
A classical relationship problem is the dichotomy between solving a problem and providing empathy. If you really want to understand this, spend two minutes and watch the awesome "It's Not About The Nail" video below. Amy and I have figured this out extremely well in our relationship. We talk about it in Startup Life: Surviving and Thriving in […]
(PDF) Relationship Between the Problem-Solving Skills and Empathy
A problem is a situation, in which a person tries to find a solution and does not exactly know how but still tries to solve it. One of the important elements of problem solving skills that individuals should have is to choose the appropriate strategy in the solution of the problems, which is important in terms of achieving success in solving problems.
How Empathy Can Resolve and Prevent Conflict
It may look easy but real empathy takes time and practice and a constant eye on your own reactions and responses. Using it in a conflict context to communicate can encourage participants to deconstruct the perceptions that condition our responses and to build bridges between us for better understanding. Let me know what you think!
Psychology Explains the Link Between Empathy and Creativity
Synergy: The interaction between creativity and being empathetic can create a synergy. In it, each domain potentially amplifies the other. As a result, each may lead to enriched empathic responses and innovative creations. Shared Cognitive and Emotional Processes: Both creativity and empathy involve cognitive and emotional processes that share ...
A dual pathway for understanding the relation between wellbeing and
Individual resilience, in this context, signifies the degree to which individuals can collaborate with others, employ problem-solving skills, exercise autonomy to work independently towards common ...
Relationship between Social Problem Solving, Anxiety and Empathy among
The aim of our study was to examine the relationship between social problem solving and some mediator and moderator variables among 12- and 16-year-old Hungarian students (N = 445).
Answers to: How would you describe the relationship between empathy and
Empathy and problem-solving are closely interconnected and positively influence each other. Empathy ... Open Menu. Close Menu. Answers. Login. Free Trial. AI Tools. Answers. Boards Lessons Apps Membership. Login. Free Trial. AI Question Answerer. How would you describe the relationship between empathy and problem-solving? Asked on 8/8/2023, 1 ...
The Difference Between Empathy and Sympathy
It acknowledges another person's hurt while maintaining the social norms necessary for the relationship to function. When a relationship is not intimate or close, sympathy is the appropriate response. ... The Differences Between Empathy and Sympathy ... we move into problem-solving mode. We have ideas and judgments about how the person feels ...
Answers to: Write an essay about How would you describe the
Empathy and problem-solving are two interconnected concepts that play a significant role in fosterin... Open Menu. Close Menu. Answers. Login. Free Trial. AI Tools. Answers. Lessons Apps Membership. Login. Free Trial. AI Essay Writer. Write an essay about How would you describe the relationship between empathy and problem-solving? Asked on 10 ...
The Limits of GenAI Educators
Summary. While generative AI tools have been heralded as the future of education, more than 40 years of academic research suggests that it could also harm learning in realms from online tutoring ...

Secondary Logo

Relationship Between the Problem-Solving Skills and Empathy Skills of Operating Room Nurses

Background

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions/Implications for Practice

Introduction

Study Model and Hypotheses

Study Population and Sample

Data Collection Tool

Personal information form

Interpersonal problem solving inventory

Basic empathy skill scale

Data Collection

Evaluation of Data

Ethical Considerations

Regression Analysis of Risk Factors Affecting Cognitive and Empathy Skills

Conclusions

Limitations

Author Contributions

Readers Of this Article Also Read

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Relationship Between the Problem-Solving Skills and Empathy Skills of Operating Room Nurses

Similar articles

Related information

How to Empathize: Resist Being a Problem Solver

HOME - open only this page - put into left frame

What is empathy?

Developing and Using a Growth Mindset for

view only this page - put into left frame

Empathy and Metacognition

{an option: If the table below is too wide for easy reading in your browser window, you can temporarily view this page in a new full-width window . }

Building Empathy-Ecology for a Classroom

Is empathy always needed?

If you want to discuss any of these ideas, you can contact me, <craigru178-att-yahoo-daut-caum> ; Craig Rusbult, Ph.D. - my life on a road less traveled

The Art of Empathetic Problem Solving

Subscribe to Email Updates

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to us to get the latest updates on professional cleaning.

Are you solving the real problem? Why empathy matters.

Two signs of a lack of empathy

Our 3 general tips for taking an empathic approach

Problem solving is the enemy of empathy

Get EQ-i 2.0 / EQ 360 Certified Online

More New Year’s resolution success with emotional intelligence

Conflict-resilience through coaching and emotional intelligence

Culture is grown not built

Preventing, or reversing, the turnover trend

How emotional intelligence can boost your organization’s bottom line by increasing productivity and saving money

Accelerating DEI in the workplace? You will need emotional intelligence skills

Building emotional intelligence into your company culture will give you an edge in competing for new talent

Challenging the myth that resilience is simply personal fortitude

How to bring more emotional intelligence to social media and virtual communities

Why curiosity is a power skill

Coaching with emotional intelligence

Negotiating with emotional intelligence

EQ-i 2.0 Online Certification

Problem Solving Versus Empathy

Relationship Between the Problem-Solving Skills and Empathy Skills of Operating Room Nurses

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

The Conflict Expert

Finding Common Ground

Top Tips To Resolve and Prevent Conflict

How to Put Empathy Into Practice

Share this:

14 comments

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Psychology Explains the Link Between Empathy and Creativity

Creative Empathy: A Relatively New Concept

Studies and Findings on Creative Empathy

Study 3 & 4: Empathic Divergent Thinking Task

Key Insights and Implications of Studying Creative Empathy

Comments & Discussions

Power of Positivity

A dual pathway for understanding the relation between wellbeing and resilience

Similar content being viewed by others