Concept and theoretical background
Loewenstein (1996) argued that visceral factors such as hunger, thirst, fatigue, pain and strong emotions can dramatically change people's preferences and behavior in the moment. He explained that the more intense such states are, the more attention narrows to goals related to them and the less long-term interests are considered. He also argued that people have difficulty bringing these influences to mind when they are not in such states. Loewenstein (2005) labeled this the hot-cold empathy gap: in a cold state people do not properly understand their hot selves, and in a hot state they do not understand their cold selves. Gilbert, Gill and Wilson (2002) reported that people anchor forecasts on their current feelings and fail to correct adequately, linking affective forecasting research to the empathy gap.
Representative experiments
Read and van Leeuwen (1998) asked office workers to choose between healthy fruit and unhealthy snacks to be delivered a week later. Those who chose while hungry picked unhealthy snacks more often than those who chose while sated, showing that people project current states onto the future. Van Boven and Loewenstein (2003) found that people who were thirsty and hot after exercise predicted more strongly that hikers lost in the mountains would suffer from thirst, showing that people project their states onto others as well. Van Boven, Loewenstein and Dunning (2005) reported an illusion of courage: in a cold state, people underestimate the fear of embarrassment and so show less courage than expected when the real situation arrives.
Self-control and extensions
Nordgren, van der Pligt and van Harreveld (2009) reported a restraint bias in which people in a cold state overestimate their self-control and consequently choose to expose themselves more to temptation, increasing impulsive behavior. The same researchers (2006) found that people also underestimate the influence of past visceral states such as pain or fatigue when looking back, explaining their own or others' past behavior too readily as a lack of willpower. The empathy gap is often discussed in areas where judgment varies sharply with state, such as plans to quit smoking or diet, preparation for crises, and understanding others' suffering. It is used alongside present bias and the false consensus effect to understand how judgment is tied to current states.
FAQ
- What is the empathy gap in simple terms?
- When you are full, you cannot really imagine how much you will want snacks when hungry; when angry, you cannot easily picture your calm self. Your current state gets in the way of understanding yourself in a different state.
- Does the empathy gap affect how we understand other people?
- Yes. Research shows people project states they are feeling, like hunger, thirst or fatigue, onto others, and when calm they tend to underestimate the effect of pain or fear that others experience.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 272–292. The foundational paper on visceral states such as hunger, fatigue and anger — the theoretical root of the empathy gap.
- Loewenstein, G. (2005). Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision making. Health Psychology, 24(4, Suppl.), S49–S56. Cleanly lays out the hot–cold empathy gap framework — handy for a quick, authoritative definition.
- Read, D., & van Leeuwen, B. (1998). Predicting hunger: The effects of appetite and delay on choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 189–205. The snack-choice study: hungry people pick unhealthier snacks for next week — a vivid case of projecting current states.
- Van Boven, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Social projection of transient drive states. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9), 1159–1168. Shows we project our own drive states onto others — the interpersonal side of the gap.
- Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., & Dunning, D. (2005). The illusion of courage in social predictions: Underestimating the impact of fear of embarrassment on other people. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(2), 130–141. On the illusion of courage — underestimating fear of embarrassment when calm; relevant to speaking up or taking risks.
- Nordgren, L. F., van der Pligt, J., & van Harreveld, F. (2009). The restraint bias: How the illusion of self-restraint promotes impulsive behavior. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1523–1528. The restraint bias: overrating self-control leads to more exposure to temptation — the gap's practical consequences.
- Nordgren, L. F., van der Pligt, J., & van Harreveld, F. (2006). Visceral drives in retrospect: Explanations about the inaccessible past. Psychological Science, 17(7), 635–640. Extends the gap to looking back on past visceral states — not only forecasting the future.
- Gilbert, D. T., Gill, M. J., & Wilson, T. D. (2002). The future is now: Temporal correction in affective forecasting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 430–444. Shows forecasts anchor on current feelings and under-correct — the link between affective forecasting and the empathy gap.