Empathy is beneficial for understanding and sharing others’ feelings (de Waal, 2012 ; Decety, Bartal, Uzefovsky, & Knafo‐Noam, 2016 ). People with higher empathy have higher emotional sensitivity (Choi & Watanuki, 2014 ; Yan, Pei, & Su, 2017 ), which helps with interpersonal conflict resolution (de Wied, Branje, & Meeus, 2007 ). However, empathy is influenced by one's cognitive ability. Compared with many other factors that could serve to influence empathy, executive function (EF) is a more general and fundamental contributor. A few famous models of empathy include EF as a factor, and consider it as a basic element of high‐level empathy or cognitive empathy (de Waal & Preston, 2017 ; Decety & Meyer, 2008 ; Heyes, 2018 ). A considerable amount of literature shown that EF can moderate empathy (Bilevicius, Kolesar, Smith, Trapnell, & Kornelsen, 2018 ; Thoma et al., 2011 ). With higher EF, people may better regulate their emotions during the empathetic process. However, the correlation between EF and empathy is not always significant among studies. Thus, the current study was the first meta‐analysis conducted to investigate the precise relationship between empathy and EF.

Empathy

Empathy is widely believed to be an umbrella term (Bloom, 2017a; de Waal & Preston, 2017). Most researchers consider empathy as a multidimensional construct, mainly including cognitive empathy and affective empathy (de Waal & Preston, 2017; Shamay‐Tsoory, Aharon‐Peretz, & Perry, 2009). Cognitive empathy describes how people recognize others’ emotions and understand their perspectives, while affective empathy refers to the autonomic and vicarious emotional responses to others’ emotions (Preston & de Waal, 2002). In the present study, we adopt this multidimensional conceptualization of empathy.

Instruments to measure what are currently believed to be dimensions of human empathy have been designed. Mehrabian and Epstein (1972) created the Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy (QMEE), which mainly reflects affective empathy. The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (Baron‐Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, & Plumb, 2001) mainly measures cognitive empathy. As for multidimensional measurements, Davis (1983) designed the most popular empathy measurement, the Interpersonal Relationship Index (IRI). This scale has four dimensions: perspective taking, fantasy, empathic concern, and personal distress. Most researchers consider the former two dimensions as cognitive empathy and the latter two as affective empathy (Wu, Li, & Su, 2012; Ze, Thoma, & Suchan, 2014). More recently, other multidimensional measurement tools have been developed. For example, Empathy Quotient (EQ, Baron‐Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004) was designed to measure the empathy of individuals with autism. Some experimental paradigms were invented in order to improve the ecological validity of empathy assessment, such as the Multifaceted Empathy Test (MET, Dziobek et al., 2008).

Based on the concept of empathy and empirical studies, researchers have proposed theoretical models to describe and explain human empathy. An earlier influential theory was the Perception‐Action Model (PAM, Preston & de Waal, 2002), which was based on an evolutionary perspective. In the PAM framework, empathy is considered an automatic and uncontrolled response. More recently, the Russian Doll Model (de Waal, 2008; de Waal & Preston, 2017) has been posited to further describe the evolution and development of human empathy; it further divides empathy into three levels: emotional contagion, empathetic concern, and perspective taking. This model may also apply to mammals as well as humans.

It should be noted that both PAM and the Russian Doll Model say little about the cognitive processes underlying empathy. Evidence from electroencephalogram (EEG)/ event‐related potential (ERP) and neuroimaging studies about empathy has revealed these processes. Decety and Meyer (2008) supported the argument that human empathy works through two routes, bottom‐up (i.e., direct matching between perception and action) and top‐down (i.e., regulation and control) information processing. These two routes of processing are interrelated. Thereafter, Heyes (2018) proposed a dual‐system model of empathy. System 1 operates automatically and develops early in life, and System 2, on the other hand, involves controlled processing and develops later than System 1. Insofar as the controlled processing involves mindreading, it may be exclusive to humans. Therefore, humans’ cognitive abilities seem to be largely involved in the dual‐processing or dual‐system model, which suggests that basic cognitive abilities, such as EF, significantly influence empathy.

Executive function Generally, EF is defined as a series of high‐level cognitive abilities that underpin the conscious control of thought and action (Diamond, 2013). EF can be divided into two sublevels. Inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility constitute the primary level of EF, while planning, reasoning, and problem‐solving belong to the higher level of EF. Since the primary level of EF has been studied more thoroughly (Zelazo, 2015), the current study will focus on it. As a basic cognitive ability, EF influences our social cognition, such as theory of mind (Devine & Hughes, 2014), and the three subcomponents of EF may work in different ways. Inhibitory control refers to the cognitive process whereby one inhibits or controls his or her attention, behavior, thoughts, and emotions in order to override a strong internal predisposition or external lure (Logan, Schachar, & Tannock, 1997). During the process of empathy, inhibitory control may help by inhibiting automatic responses to others’ emotions and by regulating the appropriate responses. Valiente et al. (2004) found that inhibitory control could positively predict other‐oriented empathy and negatively predict self‐oriented empathy in children aged 4.5 to 8 years. Common measurements of inhibitory control include the Stroop task, a variant of which is the Day/Night Stroop task (Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond, 1994), and the Go/No‐Go task (Casey et al., 1997). Working memory refers to the ability to maintain information, goals, and rules in attentional resource (Baddeley, 2011). With working memory, people can retain others’ emotional information and update it as necessary. Gao, Ye, Shen, and Perry (2016) found that both cognitive empathy and affective empathy were significantly correlated with working memory. Common measurements of working memory include the Digit Span task (Conklin, Curtis, Katsanis, & Iacono, 2000) and Corsi Block task (Berch, Krikorian, & Huha, 1998). Cognitive flexibility basically means switching. Notably, its development is based on the development of inhibitory control and working memory (Garon, Bryson, & Smith, 2008). Regarding interpersonal communication, some researchers have argued that individuals with autism are unable to empathize with others because of their deficit in cognitive flexibility (Gökçen, Frederickson, & Petrides, 2016). Common measurements of cognitive flexibility include the Wisconsin Card Sorting task (Stuss et al., 2000) and the Dimensional Change Card Sort task (Zelazo, 2006).