Scholars have increasingly turned to empathy to increase the effectiveness of participatory deliberations among individuals with diverse interests and values. However, because empathy is traditionally focused on in-group relations, deliberations in increasingly polarized contexts would benefit from ways to bridge across social groups. To address this, we apply the construct of social empathy. Our study explores social empathy through participatory technology assessment forums and asks: how do we incorporate, measure, and understand social empathy in public deliberations on human genome editing technology? The analysis reveals that by considering social empathy, participatory deliberation forum designers can use “persona” character cards and other forum infrastructure to increase the effectiveness of deliberation across social groups among individuals with diverse interests and values. For future deliberations seeking to cultivate social learning, social empathy—when designed for, integrated in, and measured through deliberations—presents an important mechanism for attention.
AbelsonJEylesJMcLeodCBCollinsPMcMullanCForestP-G (2003) Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy66(1): 95–106.
2.
AndradeRvan RiperCJGoodsonDJJohnsonDNStewartWLópez-RodríguezMD, et al. (2023) Values shift in response to social learning through deliberation about protected areas. Global Environmental Change78: 102630.
3.
AsenR (2005) Pluralism, disagreement, and the status of argument in the public sphere. Informal Logic25(2): 117–137.
4.
BächtigerADryzekJSMansbridgeJWarrenME (Eds.). (2018) The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press.
5.
BarbenDFisherESelinCLGustonDH (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In: HackettEJAmsterdamskaOLynchMWajcmanJ (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 979–1000.
6.
BarlevyDJuengstEKahnJMorenoJLambertLCharoA, et al. (2024) Governing with public engagement: An anticipatory approach to human genome editing. Science and Public Policy51: 680–691.
BeauvaisEWarrenME (2016) Taking the goals of deliberation seriously: A differentiated view on equality and equity in deliberative designs and processes. Journal of Public Deliberation12(2).
9.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
10.
CherryCThomasGGrovesCRobertsEShiraniFHenwoodK, et al. (2022) A personas-based approach to deliberating local decarbonisation scenarios: findings and methodological insights. Energy Research & Social Science87: 102455.
11.
DavisMH (1980) A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology10(85): 1–19.
12.
DavisMH (1994) Empathy: A social psychological approach. Westview Press.
13.
DryzekJS (2005) Deliberative democracy in divided societies: alternatives to agonism and analgesia. Political Theory33(2): 218–242.
14.
DryzekJSPickeringJ (2019) The Politics of the Anthropocene, 1st edn. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
DunlapREMcCrightAMYaroshKH (2016) The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development58(5): 4–23.
16.
GerdesKE (2011) Empathy, sympathy, and pity: 21st-century definitions and implications for practice and research. Journal of Social Service Research37(3): 230–241.
17.
GrönlundKHerneKSetäläM (2017) Empathy in a citizen deliberation experiment. Scandinavian Political Studies40(4): 457–480.
18.
GrudinJPruittJ (2002) Personas, participatory design and product development: an infrastructure for engagement. In: Proceedings of the participatory design conference, Malmo, 23–25 June 2002, pp. 144–152.
19.
GustonDH (1999) Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: The impact of the citizens’ panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values24(4): 451–482.
20.
GustonDH (2014) Understanding “Anticipatory Governance.”Social Studies of Science44(2): 218–242.
21.
HabermasJ (1985) The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
22.
HammondMDryzekJPickeringJ (2020) Democracy in the Anthropocene. Contemporary Political Theory19(1): 127–141.
23.
HannonM (2020) Empathetic understanding and deliberative democracy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research101(3): 591–611.
KaplanLRFarooqueMSarewitzDTomblinD (2021) Designing participatory technology assessments: A reflexive method for advancing the public role in science policy decision-making. Technological Forecasting and Social Change171: 120974.
27.
KrauseSR (2008) Civil passions: Moral sentiment and democratic deliberation. Princeton University Press.
28.
LambertLM (2024) Ecological Empathy: Relational Theory and Practice. Ecosystems and People20(1): 2396919.
29.
LambertLMSelinCChermackT (2024) Futures empathy for foresight research and practice. Futures163: 103441.
30.
LeeCWRomanoZ (2013) Democracy’s new discipline: Public deliberation as organizational strategy. Organization Studies34(5–6): 733–753.
31.
MorrellME (2010) Empathy and Democracy: Feeling, Thinking, and Deliberation. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
32.
MouffeC (1999) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism?. Social Research66(3): 745–758.
33.
MouffeC (2007) Democracy as agonistic pluralism. In: ErmarthED (ed.) Rewriting Democracy: Cultural Politics in Postmodernity. London: Routledge, pp. 36–45.
34.
MuradovaL (2021) Seeing the other side? Perspective-taking and reflective political judgements in interpersonal deliberation. Political Studies69(3): 644–664.
35.
NabatchiT (2010) Deliberative Democracy and Citizenship: In Search of the Efficacy Effect. Journal of Public Deliberation6(2): Article 8.
36.
NelsonJPTomblinDCBarberaASmallwoodM (2024) The divide so wide: Public perspectives on the role of human genome editing in the US healthcare system. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England)33(2): 189–209.
37.
QuachKDoritBMahmudFLaurenLHaleyMJanineM, et al. (2022) Editing our genome? Public forums on framing our biological futures. National Institutes of Health; Consortium for Science Policy & Outcomes at Arizona State University. Available at: https://cspo.org/research/gene-editing/genome-deliberations/forums/
38.
RoweGFrewerLJ (2000) Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values25(1): 3–29.
39.
RóżyńskaJ (2022) The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy25(3): 449–464.
40.
ScloveRE (2010) Reinventing technology assessment. Issues in Science and Technology27(1): 34–38.
41.
SegalEA (2011) Social empathy: A model built on empathy, contextual understanding, and social responsibility that promotes social justice. Journal of Social Service Research37(3): 266–277.
SegalEAGerdesKELietzCAWagamanMAGeigerJM (2017) Assessing Empathy. New York: Columbia University Press.
44.
SelinCLambertLMorainSNelsonJPBarlevyDFarooqueM, et al. (2023) Researching the future: Scenarios to explore the future of human genome editing. BMC Medical Ethics24(1): 1–12.
45.
SingerTLammC (2009) The social neuroscience of empathy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences1156(1): 81–96.
46.
StirlingA (2008) “Opening up” and ‘Closing down’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values33(2): 262–294.
47.
SunsteinCR (2002) The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy10(2): 175–195.
48.
UrbinatiNWarrenME (2008) The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science11: 387–412.
49.
WarrenME (2001) Democracy and Association. Princeton University Press.
50.
WeblerTKastenholzHRennO (1995) Public participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review15(5): 443–463.
51.
WeiszEZakiJ (2017) Empathy-building interventions: A review of existing work and suggestions for future directions. In: SeppäläEMSimon-ThomasEBrownSL, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Compassion Science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 205–217. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190464684.001.0001
52.
ZappM (2022) The legitimacy of science and the populist backlash: Cross-national and longitudinal trends and determinants of attitudes toward science. Public Understanding of Science31(7): 885–902.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
