This comment on Main and Kho’s suggestion for “a relational framework for integrating the study of empathy in children and adults” (2020) takes a conversation analytic perspective. First, I will summarize how empathy is conceptualized within conversation analysis (CA), an observational approach that aims at reconstructing naturally occurring social interaction. Second, Main and Kho’s suggestions for further research will be commented on, supporting their take on empathy as a relational phenomenon.
Couper-KuhlenE. (2009). A sequential approach to affect: The case of “disappointment.” In HaakanaM.LaaksoM.LindströmJ. (Eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions (pp. 94–123). Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Literature Society.
2.
HepburnA.PotterJ. (2007). Crying receipts: Time, empathy, and institutional practice. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(1), 89–116. http://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701331299
3.
HeritageJ. (2011). Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In StiversT.MondadaL.SteensigJ. (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 159–183). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
HeritageJ.LindströmA. (2012). Knowledge, empathy, and emotion in a medical encounter. In PeräkyläA.SorjonenM.-L. (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 256–273). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
5.
KupetzM. (2014). Empathy displays as interactional achievements—Multimodal and sequential aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, 4–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.006
6.
KupetzM. (2019). Embodying empathy in everyday and institutional settings: On the negotiation of resources, rights and responsibilities in comforting actions. In ReberE.GerhardtC. (Eds.), Embodied activities in face-to-face and mediated settings: Social encounters in time and space (pp. 329–367). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
7.
MainA.KhoC. (2020). A relational framework for integrating the study of empathy in children and adults. Emotion Review, 12, 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073919868755
8.
MondadaL. (2011). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 542–552. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
9.
MuntiglP.KnightN.WatkinsA. (2014). Empathic practices in client-centred psychotherapies. Displaying understanding and affiliation with clients. In GrafE.-M.SatorM.Spranz-FogasyT. (Eds.), Discourses of helping professions (pp. 33–57). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
10.
PeräkyläA.SorjonenM.-L. (Eds.). (2012). Emotion in interaction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11.
RuusuvuoriJ. (2005). “Empathy” and “sympathy” in action: Attending to patients’ troubles in Finnish homeopathic and general practice consultations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(3), 204–222. http://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800302
12.
RuusuvuoriJ. (2013). Emotion, affect and conversation. In StiversT.SidnellJ. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 330–349). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
13.
SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
WeisteE.PeräkyläA. (2014). Prosody and empathic communication in psychotherapy interaction. Psychotherapy Research, 24(6), 687–701. http://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2013.879619
