Difference between revisions of "Empathy"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{Infobox cite | Authors = '''Johanna Ruusuvuori''' (Tampere University, Finland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4802-0081) | To cite = Ruusuvuori, Johanna. (2024). Empathy. In...")
 
Line 4: Line 4:
 
}}
 
}}
  
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).  
+
Empathy refers to an interactional process where someone displays understanding of and affective affiliation with another person’s emotional experience, while orienting to that person’s ownership of that experience. It has been defined as a way of receiving the other’s intensive first-hand experience with an obligation “to affirm the nature of the experience and its meaning, and to affiliate with the stance of the experiencer towards them” (Heritage 2011: 160; see also Kuroshima & Iwata 2016: 93), or “displaying understanding of the other person’s emotional situation, while orienting to an asymmetry regarding their experiential rights and/or emotive involvement” (Kupetz 2014: 7).  
  
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|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 origin of the concept of empathy dates back to 19th century German esthetics where the term ''Einfühlung'' was used as referring to projection of self into a beautiful object (Wispé 1987). Since then, empathy has mostly been studied as an individual ability, a capacity for an empathic understanding of another person’s feelings and reactions. Within disciplines where the concept has been central for the activity studied, as in psychotherapy, a more processual approach has been taken, seeing empathy as an act of resonating with the other’s experiences (Barrett-Lennard 1981). Other terms that have been used to refer to similar phenomena include sympathy, role-taking, and adopting other’s viewpoint. As the term empathy, these have received varying definitions, depending on the discipline (philosophy, psychology, health sciences, sociology) or the context where they are studied (the essence or definition of the concept, the clinical practice of psychotherapy, primary care, or peer support) (see, e.g., Halpern 2003; Wispé 1987).  
  
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.
+
In conversation analysis, empathy is studied as an interactional phenomenon, as a process constructed by the participants of an encounter, a practice of doing empathy (Bucholz 2014). The focus is on the ways in which empathy is accomplished in interaction (Silverman/Peräkylä 1991). In this line of study, empathy has mostly been described in responsive position.  
  
(1) An embodied empathy display in family interaction (Goodwin & Cekaite 2018: 130–131)
+
Three important dimensions of empathy are prominent in conversation analytic definitions of empathy: understanding, affect, and focus on the experience of the other. Empathetic understanding may be either shown or claimed (Sacks 1995, II: 252). Claiming understanding entails utterances such as “I understand” or “Oh dear”, but without reference to the actual nature of the trouble described (see, e.g., Weatherall & Keevallik 2016). Showing understanding involves grasping the gist of the prior turn for example by formulating it, as in “You must feel awful about that” or proposing additional details of the described situation (see, e.g., Ruusuvuori 2005, 2007). Both aspects of understanding can also be referred to as empathic displays, without making the distinction between showing and claiming (Kupetz 2014).
 
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 '''''Boo'''''boo 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 '''''Boo'''''boo 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.
+
CA studies do not make claims about whether empathy demands actual affective involvement by the recipient (as in sharing a similar affective state of mind). Empathic responses can be treated as affective in the sense that they are seen as conveying affiliation with another person’s emotional display, and affiliation in this context can be seen as containing an affective aspect (on affiliation, see Sorjonen & Lindström 2013; Stivers 2008).  
  
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 '''[[Assessment|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 third noteworthy aspect of empathy is that it focuses on the experience of the one to whom empathy is directed (Hepburn & Potter 2023). The question of epistemic and experiential rights – that is, who is considered to be the owner of the experience in question – is considered central. Thus, in doing empathy, participants are seen to orient to an asymmetry in their experiential rights (Kupetz 2014). This means that empathic responses entail having to show affiliation without necessarily having access to an identical experience. This aspect is taken carefully into account in both everyday conversation between friends and acquaintances as well as in institutional encounters. In institutional encounters the repertoire of empathetic responses is further limited by the orientations to the institutional roles. In service encounters in particular, responses such as second stories on professionals’ own equivalent experiences, which may be seen as conveying empathy in mundane conversation, are treated as not relevant (Jefferson & Lee 1992; Ruusuvuori 2005, 2007). Furthermore, patients’ pain cries in the context of physical examination at the medical consultation are not treated as making empathy relevant. Rather, pain cries in this context are treated by both participants as ways to locate the problem source in diagnosing the patient (Heath 1989; McArthur 2018; Weatherall et al. 2021).
  
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.
+
All three aspects of empathy – understanding, affect, and orientation to the other’s rights of owning experience – are observable in the following example (1) from mundane conversation. What is also noteworthy, is that these aspects are constantly renegotiated in the process of doing empathy (Kupetz 2014; Herlin & Visapää 2016). The example depicts a phone call between two sisters, Kerry and Jill. During the call, it has been revealed that Jill’s husband has left her some time ago and that Jill is still suffering:
  
  (2) A verbal empathic display in psychotherapy (Ruusuvuori & Voutilainen 2009: 223)
+
  (1) (Ford & Hepburn 2021: 198)
 
   
 
   
  01  C:     and um- I thought it was (.) it is (0.3) on the other hand
+
  01  KER:   .TCH=°Haw:h '''d'''ear.°
  02         I was annoyed about why ↓can’t she come
+
  02 JIL:    °>Huh huh huh hu[h<°]
  03         and say it to me:↓:  I mean [#that,
+
  03 KER: ->                [ I ]t’s frustrating       
  04  T:                                 [mm:.
+
  04  KER: -> [isn’it.  ]=too[:. Because noth]ing <u>ha</u>ppens:.
  05  C:     [it would be so lovely to hear.
+
  05  JIL:   [°huh huh°]    [ M m : : : : . ]
  06 T: ->  [you’d need it  [so: much.        
+
  06         (.)
  07  C:                     [yeah.
+
  07  JIL:    °U- Yea:h.
  08  C:     but I mean even that was also like hearing it as
+
  08  KER: -> .Shh (0.2) uHHHhh an ye just kinda left in 
09        second hand(h) knowled(h)ge like felt just immensely
+
  09      -> limbo.=really,=<u>a</u>ren’t you.                  
  10        good.
+
10  JIL:    u- ~Y::↑ep
 
+
11          (0.3)  
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.  
+
In the example, Kerry responds to Jill’s emotional display (she is sobbing at line 2) with an empathic turn at lines 3–4 and 8–9. Kerry formulates Jill’s emotional state (due to her husband having left her) as frustrating (line 3) and gives further details of Jill’s proposed situation (lines 4, 8, and 9), showing understanding in regards Jill’s situation. Furthermore, Kerry attends to Jill’s primary epistemic rights to her feelings with the tag questions (lines 4 and 9), which make relevant Jill’s confirmation (lines 7 and 10) of Kerry’s proposal. With her confirmations (lines 7 and 10) Jill accepts (though minimally) Kerry’s proposals for potential ways in which Jill may be feeling.
  
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.
+
Even within CA studies, the terms adopted to describe the phenomenon covered by the above definitions of empathy may vary. While studying responses to displays of trouble, discomfort or indignation, where empathic responses are relevant, researchers may refer to affiliative responses (Couper-Kühlen 2012) or just responses to emotional displays (Merlino 2021; Voutilainen 2012) instead of empathic responses. The concept of empathy is often used in studies of therapeutic encounters or encounters where empathy is particularly important for the ongoing institutional task. However, even within similar contexts, empathy may receive different definitions, varying from more to less inclusive. Within the more inclusive end of the continuum is, for example, Wynn and Wynn’s (2006) definition from psychotherapeutic interaction. They discern cognitive, affective and sharing kinds of empathy referring to understanding the other, feeling for the other, and identifying with the other’s experience respectively. Hepburn and Ford (2021), on the other hand, define empathy quite strictly, based on four different empathy intensive contexts: mundane conversation, helplines, palliative care and psychotherapy. They show how in these contexts, empathy can be defined as utterances which “make a claim about another person’s mental or emotional state that is contingent on that person’s confirmation” (Ford & Hepburn 2021: 189).  
  
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.  
+
Despite these different definitions, the common approach to empathy in CA entails observing members’ ways of receiving other’s emotional expressions with displays of understanding, affective affiliation and orientation to the other’s experiential rights.
  
  
Line 67: Line 44:
 
* '''[[Affiliation]]'''  
 
* '''[[Affiliation]]'''  
 
* '''[[Alignment]]'''  
 
* '''[[Alignment]]'''  
* '''[[Empathy]]'''  
+
* '''[[Display of empathy]]'''  
 
* '''[[Emotion]]'''  
 
* '''[[Emotion]]'''  
 
* '''[[Empathy]]'''  
 
* '''[[Empathy]]'''  
Line 76: Line 53:
 
'''Cited References:'''
 
'''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.
+
Barrett-Lennard, G.T. (1981). The Empathy Cycle: Refinement of a Nuclear Concept. ''Journal of Counseling Psychology'', 28(2), 91–100.
 +
 
 +
Bucholz, M.B. (2014). Patterns of empathy as embodied practice in clinical conversation: A musical dimension. ''Frontiers in Psychology'', 5, Article 349.
 +
 
 +
Couper-Kühlen, 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.
 +
 
 +
Halpern, J. (2003). What is Clinical Empathy? ''Journal of General Internal Medicine'', 18, 670–674.
  
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.
+
Heath, Christian. 1989. Pain Talk: The Expression of suffering in the Medical Consultation. ''Social Psychology Quarterly'', (52)2, 113–125.
  
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.
+
Hepburn, A. & Potter, J. (2023). [https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1236148 Understanding mixed emotions in organized helping through emotionography]. ''Frontiers in Psychology'', 14.  
 +
 
 +
Herlin, I., & Visapää, L. (2016). Dimensions of empathy in relation to language. ''Nordic Journal of Linguistics'' 39(2), 135–157.
  
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.
 
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.
+
Jefferson, G., & Lee, J. (1992). The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles-Telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter.’. In: P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), ''Talk at Work'' (pp. 521–548). Cambridge University Press.
+
 
Kuroshima, S., & Iwata, N. (2016). On displaying empathy: Dilemma, category, and experience. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'' 49(2), 92—110.
+
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.
+
McArthur, A. (2018). Getting pain on the table in primary care physical exams. ''Social Science & Medicine'', 200, 190–198.
  
Peräkylä, A. (2019). Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy: Identifying Transformative Sequences. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 52(3), 257–280.
+
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., & 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.  
+
Peräkylä, A., & Silverman, D. (1990). Owning Experience: Describing the Experience of Other Persons. ''Text'', 11, 441–480.
  
Pudlinski, C. (2005). Doing empathy and sympathy: caring responses to troubles tellings on a peer support line. ''Discourse Studies'', 7(3), 267–288.
+
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. (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. (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.
+
Sacks, H. (1995). ''Lectures on Conversation. Vol II.''  Blackwell.
 +
 
 +
Sorjonen, M-L., & Lindström, A. (2013). Affiliation in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), ''The Handbook of Conversation Analysis'' (pp. 350–369). Wiley-Blackwell.
 +
 
 +
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation During Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation. ''Research on Language & Social Interaction'', 41(1), 31–57
 +
 
 +
Weatherall, A., & Keevallik, L. (2016). When Claims of Understanding are Less than Affiliative. ''Research on Language and Social Interaction'', 49(3), 167–182.
  
Stommel, W., & TeMolder, H. (2018). Empathically designed responses as a gateway to advice in Dutch counseling calls. ''Discourse Studies'', 20(4), 523-543.  
+
Weatherall, A., Keevallik, L., La, J., Dowell, T., & Stubbe, M. (2021). The multimodality and temporality of pain displays. ''Language & Communication'' (80)5, 56–70.
  
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.
+
Wispé, L. (1987). History of the concept of empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), ''Empathy and its Development'' (pp. 17–37). Cambridge University Press
  
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.  
+
Wynn, R., & Wynn, M. (2006). Empathy as an interactionally achieved phenomenon in psychotherapy. Characteristics of some conversational resources. ''Journal of Pragmatics'', 38, 1385–1397.
  
Weiste, E., & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Prosody and empathic communication in psychotherapy interaction. 'Psychotherapy Research'', 24(6), 687-701.
+
Voutilainen, L. (2012). Responding to Emotion in Cognitive Psychotherapy. In A. Peräkylä, A. & M-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), ''Emotion in Interaction'' (pp. 235–255). Oxford University Press.
  
  
Line 117: Line 110:
  
  
=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with '(display of) empathy' ===
+
=== EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'empathy' ===
 
{{#widget:Iframe
 
{{#widget:Iframe
 
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=empathy&bib=emca.bib
 
|url=https://emcawiki.net/bibtex/browser.php?keywords=empathy&bib=emca.bib
 
|border=0
 
|border=0
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 19:20, 12 September 2024

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Empathy
Author(s): Johanna Ruusuvuori (Tampere University, Finland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4802-0081)
To cite: Ruusuvuori, Johanna. (2024). 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: [ ]


Empathy refers to an interactional process where someone displays understanding of and affective affiliation with another person’s emotional experience, while orienting to that person’s ownership of that experience. It has been defined as a way of receiving the other’s intensive first-hand experience with an obligation “to affirm the nature of the experience and its meaning, and to affiliate with the stance of the experiencer towards them” (Heritage 2011: 160; see also Kuroshima & Iwata 2016: 93), or “displaying understanding of the other person’s emotional situation, while orienting to an asymmetry regarding their experiential rights and/or emotive involvement” (Kupetz 2014: 7).

The origin of the concept of empathy dates back to 19th century German esthetics where the term Einfühlung was used as referring to projection of self into a beautiful object (Wispé 1987). Since then, empathy has mostly been studied as an individual ability, a capacity for an empathic understanding of another person’s feelings and reactions. Within disciplines where the concept has been central for the activity studied, as in psychotherapy, a more processual approach has been taken, seeing empathy as an act of resonating with the other’s experiences (Barrett-Lennard 1981). Other terms that have been used to refer to similar phenomena include sympathy, role-taking, and adopting other’s viewpoint. As the term empathy, these have received varying definitions, depending on the discipline (philosophy, psychology, health sciences, sociology) or the context where they are studied (the essence or definition of the concept, the clinical practice of psychotherapy, primary care, or peer support) (see, e.g., Halpern 2003; Wispé 1987).

In conversation analysis, empathy is studied as an interactional phenomenon, as a process constructed by the participants of an encounter, a practice of doing empathy (Bucholz 2014). The focus is on the ways in which empathy is accomplished in interaction (Silverman/Peräkylä 1991). In this line of study, empathy has mostly been described in responsive position.

Three important dimensions of empathy are prominent in conversation analytic definitions of empathy: understanding, affect, and focus on the experience of the other. Empathetic understanding may be either shown or claimed (Sacks 1995, II: 252). Claiming understanding entails utterances such as “I understand” or “Oh dear”, but without reference to the actual nature of the trouble described (see, e.g., Weatherall & Keevallik 2016). Showing understanding involves grasping the gist of the prior turn for example by formulating it, as in “You must feel awful about that” or proposing additional details of the described situation (see, e.g., Ruusuvuori 2005, 2007). Both aspects of understanding can also be referred to as empathic displays, without making the distinction between showing and claiming (Kupetz 2014).

CA studies do not make claims about whether empathy demands actual affective involvement by the recipient (as in sharing a similar affective state of mind). Empathic responses can be treated as affective in the sense that they are seen as conveying affiliation with another person’s emotional display, and affiliation in this context can be seen as containing an affective aspect (on affiliation, see Sorjonen & Lindström 2013; Stivers 2008).

The third noteworthy aspect of empathy is that it focuses on the experience of the one to whom empathy is directed (Hepburn & Potter 2023). The question of epistemic and experiential rights – that is, who is considered to be the owner of the experience in question – is considered central. Thus, in doing empathy, participants are seen to orient to an asymmetry in their experiential rights (Kupetz 2014). This means that empathic responses entail having to show affiliation without necessarily having access to an identical experience. This aspect is taken carefully into account in both everyday conversation between friends and acquaintances as well as in institutional encounters. In institutional encounters the repertoire of empathetic responses is further limited by the orientations to the institutional roles. In service encounters in particular, responses such as second stories on professionals’ own equivalent experiences, which may be seen as conveying empathy in mundane conversation, are treated as not relevant (Jefferson & Lee 1992; Ruusuvuori 2005, 2007). Furthermore, patients’ pain cries in the context of physical examination at the medical consultation are not treated as making empathy relevant. Rather, pain cries in this context are treated by both participants as ways to locate the problem source in diagnosing the patient (Heath 1989; McArthur 2018; Weatherall et al. 2021).

All three aspects of empathy – understanding, affect, and orientation to the other’s rights of owning experience – are observable in the following example (1) from mundane conversation. What is also noteworthy, is that these aspects are constantly renegotiated in the process of doing empathy (Kupetz 2014; Herlin & Visapää 2016). The example depicts a phone call between two sisters, Kerry and Jill. During the call, it has been revealed that Jill’s husband has left her some time ago and that Jill is still suffering:

(1) (Ford & Hepburn 2021: 198)

01  KER:    .TCH=°Haw:h dear.°
02  JIL:    °>Huh huh huh hu[h<°]
03  KER: ->                 [ I ]t’s frustrating         
04  KER: -> [isn’it.  ]=too[:. Because noth]ing happens:.
05  JIL:    [°huh huh°]    [ M m : : : : . ]
06          (.)
07  JIL:    °U- Yea:h.
08  KER: -> .Shh (0.2) uHHHhh an ye just kinda left in   
09       -> limbo.=really,=aren’t you.                   
10  JIL:    u- ~Y::↑ep 
11          (0.3) 

In the example, Kerry responds to Jill’s emotional display (she is sobbing at line 2) with an empathic turn at lines 3–4 and 8–9. Kerry formulates Jill’s emotional state (due to her husband having left her) as frustrating (line 3) and gives further details of Jill’s proposed situation (lines 4, 8, and 9), showing understanding in regards Jill’s situation. Furthermore, Kerry attends to Jill’s primary epistemic rights to her feelings with the tag questions (lines 4 and 9), which make relevant Jill’s confirmation (lines 7 and 10) of Kerry’s proposal. With her confirmations (lines 7 and 10) Jill accepts (though minimally) Kerry’s proposals for potential ways in which Jill may be feeling.

Even within CA studies, the terms adopted to describe the phenomenon covered by the above definitions of empathy may vary. While studying responses to displays of trouble, discomfort or indignation, where empathic responses are relevant, researchers may refer to affiliative responses (Couper-Kühlen 2012) or just responses to emotional displays (Merlino 2021; Voutilainen 2012) instead of empathic responses. The concept of empathy is often used in studies of therapeutic encounters or encounters where empathy is particularly important for the ongoing institutional task. However, even within similar contexts, empathy may receive different definitions, varying from more to less inclusive. Within the more inclusive end of the continuum is, for example, Wynn and Wynn’s (2006) definition from psychotherapeutic interaction. They discern cognitive, affective and sharing kinds of empathy referring to understanding the other, feeling for the other, and identifying with the other’s experience respectively. Hepburn and Ford (2021), on the other hand, define empathy quite strictly, based on four different empathy intensive contexts: mundane conversation, helplines, palliative care and psychotherapy. They show how in these contexts, empathy can be defined as utterances which “make a claim about another person’s mental or emotional state that is contingent on that person’s confirmation” (Ford & Hepburn 2021: 189).

Despite these different definitions, the common approach to empathy in CA entails observing members’ ways of receiving other’s emotional expressions with displays of understanding, affective affiliation and orientation to the other’s experiential rights.


Additional Related Entries:


Cited References:

Barrett-Lennard, G.T. (1981). The Empathy Cycle: Refinement of a Nuclear Concept. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(2), 91–100.

Bucholz, M.B. (2014). Patterns of empathy as embodied practice in clinical conversation: A musical dimension. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 349.

Couper-Kühlen, 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.

Halpern, J. (2003). What is Clinical Empathy? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18, 670–674.

Heath, Christian. 1989. Pain Talk: The Expression of suffering in the Medical Consultation. Social Psychology Quarterly, (52)2, 113–125.

Hepburn, A. & Potter, J. (2023). Understanding mixed emotions in organized helping through emotionography. Frontiers in Psychology, 14.

Herlin, I., & Visapää, L. (2016). Dimensions of empathy in relation to language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 39(2), 135–157.

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.

Jefferson, G., & Lee, J. (1992). The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles-Telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter.’. In: P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work (pp. 521–548). 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.

McArthur, A. (2018). Getting pain on the table in primary care physical exams. Social Science & Medicine, 200, 190–198.

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., & Silverman, D. (1990). Owning Experience: Describing the Experience of Other Persons. Text, 11, 441–480.

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.

Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on Conversation. Vol II. Blackwell.

Sorjonen, M-L., & Lindström, A. (2013). Affiliation in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 350–369). Wiley-Blackwell.

Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation During Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57

Weatherall, A., & Keevallik, L. (2016). When Claims of Understanding are Less than Affiliative. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(3), 167–182.

Weatherall, A., Keevallik, L., La, J., Dowell, T., & Stubbe, M. (2021). The multimodality and temporality of pain displays. Language & Communication (80)5, 56–70.

Wispé, L. (1987). History of the concept of empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its Development (pp. 17–37). Cambridge University Press

Wynn, R., & Wynn, M. (2006). Empathy as an interactionally achieved phenomenon in psychotherapy. Characteristics of some conversational resources. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1385–1397.

Voutilainen, L. (2012). Responding to Emotion in Cognitive Psychotherapy. In A. Peräkylä, A. & M-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in Interaction (pp. 235–255). Oxford University Press.


Additional References:


EMCA Wiki Bibliography items tagged with 'empathy'