Empathy gap
Empathy gap is a cognitive bias where individuals tend to underestimate the influence of emotional states on their own and others' decision-making and behavior. This bias highlights the difficulty humans face in predicting behaviors and preferences in different states of mind, most notably between emotional and rational states.
How it works
The empathy gap occurs when there's a disconnection between an individual's current state and another state, leading to a misunderstanding of the motivations and emotions driving actions. This gap is particularly pronounced when evaluating decisions made in a 'hot' emotional state while currently in a 'cold' rational state, or vice versa. Consequently, individuals find it challenging to anticipate how they might feel or act under different circumstances, often ignoring emotional and visceral factors.
Examples
- A person who is not hungry may fail to understand why they would overeat when actually hungry.
- During calm moments, individuals might underestimate their reactions in stressful situations, such as panicking during a fire.
- Someone could underestimate the likelihood of engaging in impulsive buying when stressed or upset, though they feel financially disciplined when relaxed.
Consequences
The empathy gap can lead to poor decision-making, a lack of preparation for future emotional states, misunderstanding and underestimating others' actions and motivations. Relationships, both personal and professional, can be strained due to misinterpretations of intentions and feelings.
Counteracting
Awareness of one's own potential biases can help mitigate empathy gaps. Practicing empathy, actively considering emotional contexts, and simulating different emotional states can improve understanding. Techniques such as mindfulness and scenario-based thinking can also aid in bridging this gap.
Critiques
Some critics argue that while empathy gaps exist, they are not solely responsible for poor decision making. Other biases and environmental factors also play significant roles, and individuals may over-rely on empathy gap theories for explanations of complex human behaviors.
Fields of Impact
Also known as
Relevant Research
Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior
Loewenstein, G. (1996)
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Wouldn't it be nice? Predicting future feelings
Loewenstein, G., & Schkade, D. (1999)
Case Studies
Real-world examples showing how Empathy gap manifests in practice
Context
A mid‑stage startup built a mobile app to help users manage acute anxiety and depressive episodes with quick exercises, safety plans, and peer support chat. The product team—largely composed of engineers and designers working in stable, low‑stress conditions—relied on short usability tests and analytics from beta users to finalize the launch.
Situation
At launch the team prioritized a clean interface, minimal friction for signups, and a single 'report a problem' button routed to email. They assumed users would behave rationally: read onboarding, select coping strategies, and reach out for help if needed. The team did not run extended studies with users in highly distressed states, nor did they include real‑time crisis telephony or immediate escalation flows.
The Bias in Action
Team members, calm and composed during design sessions, underestimated how differently people behave under acute emotional distress (the empathy gap). They assumed users would follow menus and toggles patiently instead of needing immediate, low‑cognitive‑load support. Risky design decisions—placing critical help links behind two screens, requiring a password to access emergency contacts, and sending only asynchronous email reports for safety incidents—reflect a failure to predict user behavior under emotional duress. Internal metrics that looked healthy in calm test sessions masked how the app performed when users were panicked or overwhelmed.
Outcome
Within weeks of release, support logs and user feedback revealed multiple instances where users couldn't find or act on emergency options quickly. Several users reported escalating crises because they hesitated navigating the interface. The startup faced public criticism, a liability review, and user trust eroded as social media posts described the app as 'unhelpful during a breakdown.'