Naming Emotion, Empathy and Outcome

Empathy has long been regarded as central to therapeutic effectiveness. Carl Rogers described “accurate empathic understanding” as one of the core conditions for change. Contemporary outcome research supports that claim. Large meta-analyses consistently show that therapist empathy is a significant predictor of treatment outcome across modalities and client groups (Elliott et al., 2011; 2018). Importantly, it is the client’s experience of being understood — not the therapist’s self-assessment — that predicts improvement.

What has become increasingly interesting is that neuroscience now provides a plausible explanation for why this relational factor is so powerful.

The Amygdala and Emotional Threat

The amygdala plays a central role in detecting emotionally salient stimuli, particularly cues associated with threat or uncertainty. Although often described as a “fear centre,” its function is broader: it responds to anything that signals potential danger, including social rejection, criticism, shame, or relational unpredictability.

In therapeutic settings, feeling misunderstood can activate this system. When the amygdala is engaged, physiological arousal increases, defensive responses strengthen, attention narrows, and cognitive flexibility decreases. A person in this state is not simply resistant — their nervous system is oriented toward protection.

The Prefrontal Cortex and Emotional Regulation

Regulation of this limbic activation involves prefrontal regions of the brain, particularly the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (RVLPFC). This area supports inhibitory control, emotional labeling, meaning-making, and the integration of affect with language.

A seminal fMRI study by Lieberman et al. (2007) demonstrated that when individuals labeled their emotional experience — even in a simple task such as identifying a facial expression as “angry” or “afraid” — amygdala activation decreased while RVLPFC activation increased. Functional analyses suggested that these regions operate in an inverse relationship: as regulatory prefrontal systems engage, limbic threat activation diminishes.

This phenomenon has been described as implicit emotion regulation (Torre & Lieberman, 2018). Simply structuring emotional experience in language recruits regulatory neural systems, even without deliberate attempts to calm oneself.

Naming Emotion in Therapy: Interpersonal Affect Labeling

This finding has direct implications for therapeutic practice.

When a therapist accurately reflects a client’s emotional state — “It sounds like you’re feeling overwhelmed and stuck,” or “There’s a lot of frustration underneath that” — they are effectively performing interpersonal affect labeling.

Instead of the client naming their own emotion, the therapist offers language that organises it. If the reflection is experienced as accurate, the client’s emotional state becomes linguistically structured. Implicit feeling becomes explicit representation.

Although there is not yet a direct fMRI study of therapist reflections, converging research supports the plausibility of this mechanism.

First, affect labeling research shows that emotional naming reduces amygdala activation (Lieberman et al., 2007).

Second, social neuroscience demonstrates that trusted interpersonal presence reduces neural threat responses. In a well-known study, Coan, Schaefer and Davidson (2006) found that when participants anticipated threat, holding the hand of a trusted partner significantly reduced activation in threat-related brain regions. This illustrates that emotional regulation can be socially mediated.

Third, attachment and mentalisation research suggests that accurately mirrored and named emotional states enhance affect regulation capacity over time (Fonagy & Bateman, 2006). When emotion is reflected and represented, it becomes more manageable.

Taken together, these strands of evidence suggest that accurate empathic reflection may function as externally supported emotion regulation.

Social Safety and Neural Regulation

The amygdala is particularly sensitive to social threat cues. Misattunement, invalidation, or subtle judgment can amplify defensive activation. Conversely, accurate attunement signals safety.

When a client feels genuinely understood, two processes likely occur simultaneously:

1. Emotional experience is structured in language, engaging regulatory prefrontal systems.

2. Interpersonal threat reduces, dampening limbic activation.

3. 
   

This dual mechanism — linguistic structuring and social safety — creates a state in which cognitive flexibility increases and defensiveness decreases.

Within this regulated state, therapeutic techniques can be absorbed more effectively.

Empathy as a Mechanism of Change

Common factors research has long suggested that relational variables account for a meaningful proportion of therapy outcomes (Lambert & Barley, 2001). Empathy consistently emerges as one of the strongest predictors.

Viewed through a neuroscientific lens, this is not surprising. If accurate empathy:

• Reduces amygdala-driven threat responses

• Engages prefrontal regulatory circuitry

• Signals interpersonal safety

• Broadens cognitive and emotional integration then it creates the biological conditions necessary for change.

Empathy does not replace intervention strategies. It enables them.

When emotional threat remains high, reflection narrows and behaviour change becomes difficult. When threat decreases and regulation increases, exploration becomes possible.

Convergence of Evidence

The convergence across domains is compelling:

• Meta-analytic psychotherapy research links therapist empathy to better outcomes (Elliott et al., 2011; 2018).

• Neuroimaging studies demonstrate that naming emotion reduces amygdala activation and increases prefrontal engagement (Lieberman et al., 2007).

• Social neuroscience shows that trusted others reduce neural threat responses (Coan et al., 2006).

• Mentalisation research highlights the regulatory value of accurately mirrored emotional states (Fonagy & Bateman, 2006).

• 
  

Accurate empathy, particularly when it involves precise emotional naming, appears to sit at the intersection of relationship and regulation.

When a client feels deeply understood, their nervous system is less oriented toward protection and more capable of reflection. That shift may be one of the most fundamental mechanisms underlying therapeutic change.

References

Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a hand: Social regulation of the neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1032–1039.

Elliott, R., Bohart, A. C., Watson, J. C., & Greenberg, L. S. (2011). Empathy and psychotherapy outcome: An updated meta-analytic review. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 43–49.

Elliott, R., Bohart, A. C., Watson, J. C., & Murphy, D. (2018). Therapist empathy and client outcome: An updated meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 399–410.

Fonagy, P., & Bateman, A. (2006). Mechanisms of change in mentalization-based treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(4), 411–430.

Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M. J., Tom, S. M., Pfeifer, J. H., & Way, B. M. (2007). Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. Psychological Science, 18(5), 421–428.

Torre, J. B., & Lieberman, M. D. (2018). Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling as implicit emotion regulation. Emotion Review.