Display of empathy
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Display of empathy | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Johanna Ruusuvuori (Tampere University, Finland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4802-0081) |
| To cite: | Ruusuvuori, Johanna. (2024). Display of empathy. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ] |
Definitions of display of empathy vary within conversation-analytic research. In much of CA research, a display of empathy refers to an action claiming or showing understanding of the other person’s emotional experience or situation, with no difference made between whether the action is verbalized or not (Kupetz 2014; Pudlinski 2005; Ruusuvuori 2005; Weiste & Peräkylä 2014). Some studies, on the other hand, limit the word empathy to refer to verbalized displays, while calling other types of affiliative responses ‘sympathetic’, thus discerning semantic from non-semantic displays (Ford & Hepburn 2021; see also Goodwin & Cekaite 2018: 130).
Following the first line of thought, displays of empathy may be made through various resources, from kinetic or prosodic to verbalized utterances that may take various forms (Kupetz 2014). This wider view on displays of empathy includes for example affiliative utterances (such as in English “Oh dear”) that are accompanied by prosodic features that convey matching affective stance, such as matching or upgrading in responding to complaints in mundane conversation (Couper-Kuhlen 2012) or continuing the intonation or rhythm of the speaker’s preceding turns (Couper-Kuhlen 2012; Weiste & Peräkylä 2014). More recently, attention has also been paid to embodied forms of affiliative responses to others’ trouble or discomfort including, for example, comforting touch following a crying sequence in family interaction (Goodwin & Cekaite 2018: 129–135) or in stroke rehabilitation (Merlino 2021), or facial expression in demonstrating matching affective stance with the teller’s negative emotional experience of losing a loved one (Kupetz 2014). Kupetz (2014) shows how facial expressions as empathic resources may appear early in receiving the telling, even before the actual trouble has been verbalized. This way, they help demonstrating that the recipient follows the affective stance of the teller, that they are ‘with’ them in the unfolding narrative. Even though such embodied displays cannot be treated as referring to a particular referent in the story told, they do acknowledge, and affiliate with the affective stance that is observable in the telling (on facial expressions modifying the affective stance of the teller, see Peräkylä & Ruusuvuori 2012).
The following excerpt (1) shows an embodied display of empathy by a mother consoling her daughter through empathic touch after they have collided in the bedroom.
(1) An embodied empathy display in family interaction (Goodwin & Cekaite 2018: 130–131)
1 ((Becky and Mom collide as Becky walks backwards))
2 Mom: You okay?
3 Becky: [((displays pained look on face))
4 Becky: [°No°.
5 Mom: No?
6 Becky: ((shakes head))
7 Mom: You want Booboo Bunny?
8 Becky: Err ((softly moaning, lifts hands to Mom’s arms))
9 Mom: You want Booboo Bunny? ((lifts Becky in arms))
10 Becky: Mm hmph! ((moaning))
11 Mom: Hm?
12 Becky: Emph!
13 Mom: -> ((kisses face)) Yes? ((kisses face)) Lemme see.
14 Mom: ((puts Becky on bed))
15 Becky: ((moaning)) Mmmmm Mph! ((holds up foot))
16 Mom: Can you sho(hh)w me where? ((holds foot))
17 Becky: ((points to place on foot))
18 Mom: You want Booboo Bunny?
19 -> ((kisses foot))
...
20 Mom: ((goes to get Booboo Bunny))
In the excerpt, Mom responds to Becky’s discomfort verbally by inquiring about whether she is hurt or not (lines 2 and 5) and offering to get a comfort toy for her (lines 7, 9 and 18). As Becky tells and shows with her sobs that she is not okay and does not answer Mom’s question about the Booboo Bunny, Mom shows her affective affiliation with Becky’s discomfort by kissing her face and inquiring about the location of the trouble cause (line 13) and thereafter kissing Becky’s sore foot, this way comforting and consoling her.
Verbal (or semantic) empathic displays make a claim or a proposal about the other person’s mental or emotional state, this way showing understanding of the other’s troublesome situation. As they step into the other person’s experiential territory (Heritage 2011), they make relevant some kind of confirmation or endorsement from the person whose trouble is in focus. These resources include utterances such as assessments (“Sounds terrifying”), formulations (“So you were actually anxious”), and second stories, where the recipient may tell about their equivalent troubles (Beach & Dixson 2001; Ruusuvuori 2005; Weiste & Peräkylä 2013). The processual characteristics of empathy become observable in studying whether such claims are confirmed or not by the interlocutors.
The following excerpt (2) shows a case of a psychotherapist displaying empathy with a verbal formulation of the client’s troubles-telling. We can see how after the psychotherapist’s formulation on the client’s affective state at line 5, the client confirms the therapist’s suggestion. Preceding the excerpt, the client has been complaining about her mother never praising her face-to-face, but she has now heard from a friend that her mother had given positive comments about her.
(2) A verbal empathic display in psychotherapy (Ruusuvuori & Voutilainen 2009: 223) 01 C: and um- I thought it was (.) it is (0.3) on the other hand 02 I was annoyed about why ↓can’t she come 03 and say it to me:↓: I mean [#that, 04 T: [mm:. 05 C: [it would be so lovely to hear. 06 T: -> [you’d need it [so: much. 07 C: [yeah. 08 C: but I mean even that was also like hearing it as 09 second hand(h) knowled(h)ge like felt just immensely 10 good.
The psychotherapist receives the client’s complaint at line 6, formulating her understanding of the patient’s hope to hear positive comments about herself from her mom. The client treats the therapist’s turn as a proposal in need of her confirmation, which she gives at line 7. As is observable in the excerpt, the client however continues by specifying her meaning and even slightly contradicting the therapist’s suggestion by stating that she felt good even if she had heard the positive comments only second hand (lines 8–10).
The dilemma of attending to asymmetries of experience described in many CA studies of empathy becomes prominent here. The practical problem is of having to affiliate with reported experiences without similar access to the experience in question, and yet being able to show sufficient (but not too far-reaching) understanding of that experience (Heritage 2011; Kuroshiwa & Iwata 2016). While mere claims of understanding may not display sufficient access to the experience in question, showing understanding may be regarded as going too far into the territory of the owner of the experience in question. Second stories, which are one way to show access to a similar situation as the experiencing person, risk just this. Solving the dilemma entails continuous negotiation on the suitable level of access in displaying empathy.
Some studies have also pointed out how in institutional encounters, displays of empathy may be used in service of other goals than empathetic responses. They have been found to act in service of closing the phase of verbally examining the patient (Ruusuvuori 2007), as a gateway to advice in counseling calls (Stommel & Te Molder 2018), or as means of transferring the patient’s experience in psychotherapy (Peräkylä 2019). Furthermore, Tietbohl (2021) has shown how doctors may display empathy towards older adults when they have not themselves made it relevant in their preceding turns of talk in contexts where doctors lack a medical solution to offer to the patient.
Whether semantic or non-semantic, given as responses conveying empathy, or in service of some other tasks, displays of empathy characteristically include a display of understanding, of matching affective stance, and an orientation to asymmetry of experience between the participants.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Beech, W.A., & Dixson, C.N. (2001). Revealing moments: formulating understandings of adverse experiences in a health appraisal interview. Social Science and Medicine, 52, 25–44.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversational complaint stories. In A. Peräkylä, A. & M-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in Interaction (pp. 113—146). Oxford University Press.
Ford, J. & Hepburn, A. (2021). Responding empathically from shifting epistemic terrains. In J.S. Robles & A. Weatherall (Eds.), How Emotions are Made in Talk (pp. 189–210). John Benjamins.
Goodwin, C., & Cekaite, A. (2018). Embodied Family Choreography. Practices of Control, Care, and Mundane Creativity. Routledge.
Heritage, J. (2011). Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: empathic moments in interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 159–183). Cambridge University Press.
Kupetz, M. (2014). Empathy displays as interactional achievements - Multimodal and sequential aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 61, 4-34.
Kuroshima, S., & Iwata, N. (2016). On displaying empathy: Dilemma, category, and experience. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(2), 92—110.
Merlino, S. (2021). Haptics and emotions in speech and language therapy sessions for people with post-stroke aphasia. In J.S. Robles & A. Weatherall (Eds.), How Emotions are Made in Talk (pp. 233–262). John Benjamins.
Peräkylä, A. (2019). Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy: Identifying Transformative Sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(3), 257–280.
Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2012). Facial expression and interactional regulation of emotion. In A. Peräkylä & M-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction, (pp. 64–91). Oxford University Press.
Pudlinski, C. (2005). Doing empathy and sympathy: caring responses to troubles tellings on a peer support line. Discourse Studies, 7(3), 267–288.
Ruusuvuori, J. (2005). "Empathy" and "Sympathy" in Action: Attending to Patients' Troubles in Finnish Homeopathic and General Practice Consultations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(3), 204–222.
Ruusuvuori, J. (2007). Managing affect: intergration of empathy and problem-soilving in health care encounters. Discourse Studies, 9(5), 597–622.
Ruusuvuori, J., & Voutilainen, L. (2009). Comparing affiliating responses to troubles-tellings in different types of health care encounters. In M. Haakana, M. Laakso & J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in Interaction. Comparative Dimensions (pp. 206–230). Finnish Literature Society.
Stommel, W., & TeMolder, H. (2018). Empathically designed responses as a gateway to advice in Dutch counseling calls. Discourse Studies, 20(4), 523-543.
Tietbohl, C.K., (2021). Empathic validation in physician-patient communication: an approach to conveying empathy for problems with uncertain solutions. Qualitative Health Research 32(3), 413-425.
Weiste, E., & Peräkylä, A. (2013). A comparative conversation analytic study of formulations in psychoanalysis and cognitive psychotherapy. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(4), 299–321.
Weiste, E., & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Prosody and empathic communication in psychotherapy interaction. 'Psychotherapy Research, 24(6), 687-701.
Additional References:
