Empathy training for service employees: A mixed-methods systematic review

Abstract

Following the surge for empathy training in service literature and its increasing demand in service industries, this study systematically reviews empirical papers implementing and testing empathy training programs in various service domains. A mixed-methods systematic review was performed to identify and describe empathy training programs and discuss their effectiveness in service quality, service employees’ well-being, and service users’ satisfaction. Included papers met those eligibility criteria: qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods study; one training in empathy is identifiable; described training(s) developed for or tested with service employees dealing with service users. We searched health, business, education, and psychology databases, such as CINAHL, Medline ABI/Inform Global, Business Source Premier, PsycINFO, and ERIC. We used the Mixed-Method Assessment Tool to appraise the quality of included papers. A data-based convergent synthesis design allowed for the analysis of the data. A total of 44 studies published between 2009 to 2022 were included. The narrative presentation of findings was regrouped into these six dimensions of empathy training programs: 1) why, 2) who, 3) what, 4) how, 5) where, and 6) when and how much. Close to 50% of studies did not include a definition of empathy. Four main empathic competencies developed through the training programs were identified: communication, relationship building, emotional resilience, and counseling skills. Face-to-face and group-setting interventions are widespread. Our systematic review shows that the 44 papers identified come only from health services with a predominant population of physicians and nurses. However, we show that the four empathic skills identified could be trained and developed in other sectors, such as business. This is the first mixed-methods, multi-disciplinary systematic review of empathy training programs in service research. The review integrates insights from health services, identifies research limitations and gaps in existing empirical research, and outlines a research agenda for future research and implications for service research.

1. Introduction

Empathy—our ability to share and understand others’ affective and mental states [1]—is regularly praised for its positive role in service interactions. It is a sociobiological process that engages service employees (SEs) and service users (SUs) in a reciprocity-based service interaction [2], enhancing SUs’ experience and supporting firms’ performance [3]. SEs’ empathy elicits higher SUs’ perception of service quality and satisfaction [e.g., 4], and service experience [e.g., 5]. However, empathy is not only a developmental trait but also a professional requirement that needs to be developed through empathy training programs, especially when SEs are asked to perform emotional labor through multiple interactions with emotional SUs. In a recent survey, 84% of CEOs reported that empathy is a crucial soft skill in customer service settings and an essential factor in improving the customer service experience [6].

Over recent years, numerous companies have implemented empathy training programs for their SEs. When Starbucks faced a wave of global outrage and a call for a boycott following the arrest of two Black customers in one of its Philadelphia stores, CEO Kenneth Johnson addressed this issue using an empathy-oriented intervention strategy. He enrolled approximately 175,000 SEs across the United States in a four-hour training session to build empathy, compassion, and a welcoming environment for all customers [7]. Boots, a UK-based pharmacy/cosmetics retailer, invested in a unique training program for SEs that includes empathy training to understand customer needs better [8]. Bank of America also developed a dedicated empathy training series called “Life Stages” for SEs to develop various soft skills. The empathy training program helps SEs examine the customers’ needs throughout different stages of their life and allows SEs to build empathy through activities such as role-play [9]

Surprisingly, despite regular calls for investigating empathy training in service [e.g., 3], we found no empirical studies developing, testing, and implementing empathy training for SEs. Conversely, many studies in health have already investigated the efficiency of empathy training programs on physicians’ and nurses’ well-being and patients’ satisfaction [e.g., 10]. Against this backdrop, we conducted a mixed-methods systematic review to identify, synthesize, and discuss the existing empathy training programs in various service contexts (e.g., health, marketing, education, and management). The mixed-methods systematic review had two main objectives: 1) identify and synthesize the existing empathy training programs empirically tested service delivery, and 2) discuss the effectiveness of those empathy training programs in perceived service quality, perceived value, and user satisfaction. We also wanted to discuss the applicability of those identified empathy training programs to various service contexts, such as service marketing.

The study addresses two gaps in the service literature. First, our systematic review is the first to synthesize empathy training programs in various service sectors and to discuss the results from a service marketing perspective. Second, our systematic review goes beyond the call for empathy training for SEs and introduces clear directions for implementing empathy training programs in service and a research agenda for future investigations that will foster the development and successful implementation of empathy training programs in services marketing. The rest of the paper is structured as follows: section 2 describes the methodology of the mixed-methods systematic review. Section 3 presents the study results. We expose the methodological quality assessment of included studies, describe the empathy training programs through the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist [11], and report their effectiveness. Section 4 discusses the results and outlines a research agenda to foster future investigations and implementations of empathy training programs in services marketing. Finally, section 5 presents the limitations of our study.

2. Methodology

2.1. Formulation of the research question

Our mixed-methods systematic review targets empathy training programs in service (nursing, medicine, health delivery, business, education) defined as any training method (e.g., didactic, experiential, or mindfulness) dedicated to fostering, developing, or improving SE’s empathic skills and to providing clear directions and recommendations in training SEs in empathic skills [12]. We formulated the research questions from discussions between the authors: 1) What is the existing empathy training program empirically tested about service delivery? And 2) How effective are empathy training methods for perceived service quality, value, and user satisfaction? We ran an exploratory analysis to describe the current state of the research on empathy training in service and to answer our research questions [S1 Checklist].

2.2. Search strategy

To maximize the subject covering, we searched the significant databases in health, business, education, and psychology: CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost), Embase, Medline (Ovid), ABI/Inform Global (ProQuest), Business Source Premier (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (Ovid) and ERIC (EBSCOhost), to which we added the multidisciplinary Web of Science Core Collection database. An information specialist developed the search strategy and adapted it for each database [S1 Appendix].

The search terms were first identified through the research team’s prior knowledge of the topic, readings, and discussions in collaboration with the librarian. We applied the generic terms “training,” “service employees,” and “empathy” to the eight databases. We added specific terms to cover different training methods, diverse kinds of service employees, and various empathic behaviors. To do so, we applied controlled vocabulary by using a thesaurus. We completed with free text terms like training, teaching, courses, education methods, educational methodologies, experiential learning, scenario techniques, simulation, role play, role-playing, virtual reality, storytelling, service employees, service personnel, service staff, service workers, service organizations, educational services, business services, customer services, health services, caregivers, carers, therapists, counselors, doctors, healthcare providers, nurses, physicians, psychologists, empathy, altruism, compassion, sympathy, emotional intelligence, emotional connection, emotional contagion, helping behavior, helping attitude, active listening, prosocial behavior, prosocial attitude, prosocial behavior, prosocial attitude, theory of mind, understanding of others (see Table 1).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

2.3. Inclusion/exclusion criteria and selection process of relevant articles

We included articles identified from these research databases in the final sample only if they adhered to the following search criteria: 1) the article is a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods empirical study (i.e., includes qualitative and quantitative methods and data); 2) at least one training in empathy is identifiable; 3) the described training(s) in empathy is/are developed for or tested with SEs dealing with SUs. We included only papers whose research objectives explicitly stated the aim of testing a method (e.g., narrative training, role-play, mindfulness, communication training) to promote, improve, or develop SEs’ empathic skills during service delivery. Articles were restricted to non-students, adult people (18+) in charge of service delivery (nursing, medicine, business, education, health).

We excluded editorials, comments, letters to the editor, and technical notes. We also excluded articles reviewing training in empathy, but we checked them for additional references. We limited our search to peer-reviewed journal articles published in English, French, Italian, and Spanish to narrow the literature search scope. We initially set up our systematic literature search to cover articles published within ten years (from January 1, 2009, to August 6, 2019). However, imponderable events forced us to delay the submission of our results (e.g., the Covid-19 pandemic), and we had to update our search to cover the period from August 6, 2019, to April 1, 2022. The following numbers consider this update (numbers under brackets represent the score for the first and the second batch of searches).

When applied in title, abstract, and keyword fields, the search produced 20,300 articles (15,043 + 5,257 for the update), to which we removed 6,416 duplicates (4,707 + 1,709). By screening the 13,884 references remaining (10,336 + 3548), we excluded 13,603 of them (10,075 + 3528). We assessed 281 articles for eligibility (261 + 20), eliminating those that failed to meet our inclusion criteria. The final sample was 44 relevant articles (38 + 6) (see the systematic review process flow chart in Fig 1).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

A team of three reviewers screened the candidate articles and selected qualified studies independently using a multi-level title-first method [13]. After screening the title, a second (abstract) and third level (full text), screening was conducted if necessary to obtain an agreement regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the article. In case of disagreement for final inclusion, a fourth researcher assessed the inclusion eligibility of the paper after attempting to resolve it through discussion. The screening was conducted blindly using online reference management and screening tool (Covidence). Inter-rater agreement was determined by calculating Cohen’s kappa coefficient.

Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were subjected to quality assessment using the Mixed-Method Assessment Tool (MMAT) [S1 Table]. The MMAT (available in S1 Table) provides a unique tool to assess the methodological quality of quantitative (experimental, quasi-experimental, and descriptive), qualitative, and mixed-methods studies based on five criteria [14]. Each criterion is rated as ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ or ‘can’t tell.’ Two reviewers independently applied the MMAT and provided a final score based on consensus. Each ‘yes’ response was scored “1” while ‘no’ and ‘can’t tell’ were scored “0”.

2.4 Data synthesis approach

We used a data-based convergent synthesis design to analyze the quantitative and qualitative data [15]. We analyzed all included studies employing the same synthesis method. We presented quantitative and qualitative data in the results section under a narrative presentation. We transformed the quantitative results into qualitative ones by reporting, for example, the description of the effectiveness of the empathy training programs instead of the presentation of regrouped statistics. We relied on the TIDieR checklist [11] to report the description of interventions through 6 questions: Why? Who? What? How? Where? When and how much?

3. Results section

3.1. Description of the included studies and methodological quality assessment

Results of the 44 included studies on empathy training rely on at least 6855 career professionals practicing within their field: medicine (n = 4901), nursing (n = 1145), social work (n = 322), psychological counseling (n = 82), therapy services (n = 55), other (n = 350). Twenty-six selected studies were published between 2009 and 2016, and 18 were published within the last five years (see Table 2). The selected studies have been carried out on five continents: Africa (South Africa; n = 1), Oceania (Australia; n = 3), North America (Canada, USA; n = 14), Europe (Spain, Sweden, UK, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, France; n = 16), and Asia (Taiwan, South Korea, Turkey, Japan, Iran, China; n = 10). Empathy training implementation and evaluation are somewhat biased toward Western countries (n = 30). However, there is still a significant diversity to account for cultural differences. The study design distribution is as follows: 61.4% Quantitative Non-Randomized (n = 27), 18.2% Mixed Methods (n = 8), 15.9% Quantitative Randomized (n = 7), and 4.5% Qualitative (n = 2). The selected studies are published in leading healthcare (n = 33) or psychology journals (n = 11). The leading healthcare journals include Journal of Pediatric Nursing, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Advanced Nursing, International Journal of Medical Sciences, Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, and BMC Medical Education. The leading psychology journals include Frontiers in Psychology, Journal of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, and Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy Research.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

There were 7 (15.9%) experimental and 28 (63.6%) non-experimental quantitative studies. Qualitative and mixed-methods designs represented 4.5% (n = 2) and 15.9% (n = 7) of the included studies. Most experimental studies had a good to excellent MMAT score (mean of 3.9 out of 5), whereas quasi-experimental studies had a lower MMAT score (mean of 3/5). The two qualitative studies had an excellent MMAT score (5/5), and the mixed-methods studies had more variable MMAT scores, with means of 3.1/5 for the quantitative part, 4.7/5 for the qualitative part, and 2.3/5 for the mixed-methods component. The details of the MMAT score for each study are presented in the S1 Table. The most poorly reported criteria are given here per each design. Regarding the experimental studies, the criterion was: 2.1. Is randomization appropriately performed? For the quasi-experimental studies, those two criteria were: 3.1 Are the participants representative of the target population? 3.4 Are the confounders accounted for in the design and analysis? Regarding the mixed-methods studies, the two criteria that were not consistently reported were: 5.2. Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question? 5.4. Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed?

3.2. Why?

The main goal of empathy training is to increase SEs’ empathy toward SUs. But how researchers define empathy leads to specific behaviors targeted and facilitated through empathy training. Only half of the selected studies (n = 21) define empathy (see Table 3), which is mainly viewed as a cognitive rather than an affective response [i.e., SEs’ ability to understand SUs’ emotions; 38]. This cognitive framing denotes a practical approach to empathy training aimed at detecting and using SU’s emotions as social information to adapt the service delivery. For instance, empathy in rehabilitation nursing refers to understanding each patient’s situation while responding caringly [16]. Therefore, empathy training focuses on storytelling exercises that challenge SEs to identify, describe, and create emotional narratives. In medicine, empathy is a feeling of understanding between the physician and the patient to develop a trusting partnership [34]. Therefore, empathy training relies on four methods—case study, role-playing, active listening, and social style identification—to develop physicians’ cognitive (i.e., perspective-taking) and affective (i.e., emotion sharing) empathy in interpersonal physician-patient relationships [34].

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

21 papers out of the 44 selected papers did not define empathy.

Independently on specific service settings, empathy training goals can be further divided into four categories: (1) communication skills (n = 21; 47.7%); (2) relationship building (n = 15; 34.1%); (3) emotional resilience (n = 6; 13.6%); and (4) counseling skills (n = 2; 4.5%). Communication skills allow the effective sharing of information between parties [e.g. 20, 35] and apply to service interactions that rely on frequent and sensitive interactions [23, 57]. Relationship building aims at helping SEs to form effective bonds with SUs through empathy [e.g., 28, 41] and apply to service settings that require prolonged interactions with vulnerable SUs [16, 38]. Emotional resilience aims at providing SEs with the necessary self-regulation skills to reduce professional and emotional burnout [e.g., 19, 23, 36] and apply to demanding and emotionally exhaustive service settings [e.g., 38, 43]. Finally, counseling skills empower SEs to support SUs through strategies such as motivational interviewing [e.g., exploring SU’s perspective; 29, 30].

The purpose of empathy training could also be classified according to the beneficiary—the SEs (e.g., reducing burnout) or the SUs (e.g., increasing service satisfaction). Empathy training to improve SUs’ service satisfaction is the most prevalent among the selected studies (n = 28; 63.6%) [e.g., 20, 25]. For instance, training can help SEs with frequent and sensitive interactions with SUs (e.g., therapy) improve service quality through empathic communication [e.g., 35, 44]. Then, selected studies that target SEs’ benefits through empathy training (n = 16; 36.4%) aim to reduce SEs’ burnout and emotional exhaustion, especially among those working in intensive positions, such as Intensive Care Unit nurses or primary care physicians [e.g., 36, 43]. Other desired employee-centric benefits include increased self-compassion and confidence, which aid SEs in coping with the demands of their job [e.g., 31], and changed job perception and increased prosocial attitudes toward their role [e.g., 16, 39].

3.3. Who?

The 44 selected studies focus mainly on adult professionals working in health-adjacent fields: Nurses (n = 13; 29.5%), physicians (n = 13; 29.5%), mental health professionals (n = 6; 13.6%), therapists (n = 4; 9.1%), care workers (n = 3; 6.8%), and others (n = 5; 11.4%). The combined number of participants in empathy training totalized 6855, with the following occupational breakdown: Physicians (71.5%), nurses (16.7%), care workers (4.7%), mental health professionals (1.2%), therapists (0.8%), and others (3.4%). Physicians account for a disproportionate number of respondents due to a few studies using large sample sizes [e.g., 23, 59]. Also, the overrepresentation of professional health workers in empathy training programs is coherent with professional requirements in the health sector. To communicate with patients about sensitive topics such as diagnosing lung cancer, physicians’ ability to empathize is essential [23]. Empathy training can help improve the outcome of these stigmatized communications [21]. The role of nurses, especially in sensitive sectors such as neonatal care [25], is also highly dependent on effective and compassionate communication during distressing situations [20]. Finally, mental health workers, caregivers, and therapists benefit greatly from emotional literacy and empathy training programs to build strong relationships with their clients through effective and empathic communication [e.g., 22], such as understanding the difficulties experienced by those who have dementia [56].

3.4. What?

The content brought forward through empathy training varies greatly depending on the context of the profession towards which the training is applied. For instance, care workers working with dementia patients are introduced to an empathy training session simulating the debilitating effects of dementia [37]. Empathy training for dental care professionals working with elders relies on the “Humanitude” method, which focuses on communication skills through gaze, talk, touch, and assistance with standing up [44]. Empathy training can also contain a role-play module (taking the role of the SU) to foster empathic understanding [17] or a narrative approach to humanize the environment for SEs through sharing and interpretation of stories [e.g., 16, 27]. Another empathy training program consists of physicians receiving scenario-based modules called “In Their Shoes,” detailing the challenges of patients living with inflammatory bowel disease to understand their perspective better [39].

3.5. How?

Empathy training programs are mainly carried out face-to-face (n = 22; 50%), in group settings (n = 12; 27.3%), or distance learning (n = 3; 6.8%) (others: n = 7; 15.9%). Face-to-face and group-setting interventions are very common. They allow for interpersonal exercises, such as role-play [e.g., 28], and specific methods, such as the “Comskil” program to improve empathic skills through seven modules [20, 21]: (1) agenda setting, (2) questioning and history taking, (3) recognizing or eliciting a patient’s empathic opportunity, (4) working toward a shared understanding of the patient’s emotion/experience, (5) empathically respond to the emotion or experience, (6) facilitate coping and connect to social support, and (7) closing the conversation. Conversely, the more unusual approaches to empathy training are found in the “other” category. For instance, simulation-based empathy training exposes care workers to the challenges of living with dementia and uses sensory deprivation to emulate the condition [37].

The staff who administer the empathy training programs are research team members (n = 16; 36.4%), medical professionals (n = 12; 27.3%), trainers (n = 8; 18.2%), and other professionals (n = 8; 18.2%). The more straightforward and less engaging empathy training formats are often led by untrained staff or research team members. These simple-to-run training formats include educational videos and simulations that require minimal involvement from the provider [e.g., 38]. The structured empathy training sessions are also provided by existing employees hosting the training [e.g., 56]. The more complex training sessions usually involve dynamic exercises, such as expressive writing workshops and role-play, requiring professional staff to facilitate them [e.g., 16].

3.6. Where?

Empathy training programs are not resource-intensive and do not require much space. In the 44 selected studies, empathy training sessions took place primarily in hospitals/clinics (n = 23; 52.3%), universities/research labs (n = 7; 15.9%), and other locations (n = 14; 31.8%), such as at home using a computer program or a workbook [30, 57]. Since most research participants were employed in the health field, it is understandable that the empathy training would be conducted on-site at the hospital/clinic where they are used.

3.7. When and how much

The empathy training tested in the 44 selected studies followed varying timeframes: Less than a week (n = 17; 38.6%), a month or less (n = 4; 9.1%), six months or less (n = 17; 38.6%), more than six months (n = 3; 6.8%), and other (n = 3; 6.8%). The training timeframe is primarily tied to the participating workers’ availability and the desired sample size [e.g., 23]. It can be administered in single or multiple sessions over time [24]. Therefore, a relevant metric to consider is the duration of the intervention itself. However, there is considerable variation among all the empathy training, demonstrating no standard duration. The breakdown is as follows: 50 minutes (n = 2), 1 hour (n = 1), 1.5 hours (n = 1), 2 hours (n = 1), 2.15 hours (n = 1), 3.3 hours (n = 1), 4 hours (n = 2), 6 hours (n = 1), 7 hours (n = 1), 8 hours (n = 1), 9 hours (n = 3), 12 hours (n = 1), 14 hours (n = 1), 16 hours (n = 2), 18 hours (n = 2), 20 hours (n = 1), 28 hours (n = 1), 36 hours (n = 2), 52 hours (n = 1), and eight sessions (n = 1). For instance, a study seeking an intensive intervention schedule spread 28 hours of course time over eight weeks [18]. Other studies include role-playing components as part of the intervention, resulting in longer sessions than the more straightforward lecture-based approach [28, 37]. The more unique training methods increase the variability of the time required. For instance, simulation-based dementia training requires only 50 minutes, including equipment setup [37]. Contrarily, an online simulation seeking to immerse the user in the daily challenges of living with inflammatory bowel disease had 36 hours of content [39].

3.8. Effectiveness of training

The systematic review shows that 68.2% (n = 30) of the 44 selected studies report a significant increase following the intervention in empathy scores, such as perspective-taking (i.e., cognitive empathy) or empathy-based service skills, such as accurate listening [e.g., 20, 32, 43, 54, 55]. For instance, studies focusing on improving empathic responses and communication frequency while working with SUs reported favorable results; for example, nurses working with diabetic adolescents more frequently responded empathically following a two-day empathy program [42]. Similarly, nephrology residents exposed to communication training had an increased rate of spontaneous empathic responses [35]. Other studies indicated a decrease in un-empathic communication following empathy training, further supporting the claim that empathy training effectively improves communication [e.g., 25, 58]. Evidence also confirms the direct effect of empathy training on service quality. For instance, patient satisfaction increases when interacting with nurses [34, 49, 31] or physicians [23] who have improved their empathic communication skills through empathy training programs. Empathy training also increased the service quality of Cognitive Behavior Therapy by developing therapeutic skills using self-reflection and self-practice [30].

The effect of empathy training on the well-being of SEs is also well supported by the results in the 44 selected studies. Studies show that SEs improved their ability to cope with emotional distress [e.g., 16, 18, 19, 52] and mitigate professional burnout associated with high-stress positions such as nursing following empathy training [e.g., 23, 36, 43]. This improvement in well-being extends past the individual since empathy training enhances the sense of community among the nursing staff [16].

3.9. Summary of findings

Consistent with our inclusion criteria, all selected studies’ goal of empathy training was to increase/improve SEs’ empathy toward SUs. The 21 studies that reported a definition of empathy focus mainly on the cognitive rather than the affective dimension of empathic skills, denoting a practical approach to empathy training aimed at detecting and using SU’s emotions as social information to adapt the service delivery. The results of the 44 selected studies confirm that empathy training enhances SEs’ empathic skills and SUs’ satisfaction. Significantly, empathy training improves SEs’ empathy along four primary skills: communication skills, relationship building, emotional resilience, and counseling skills.

The results of the 44 selected studies focus mainly on adult professionals working in health-adjacent fields. However, the content brought forward through empathy training varies greatly depending on the professional context. Empathy training sessions are mainly conducted face-to-face, in group settings at the practice location (e.g., hospitals, universities), or in distance learning. Finally, the empathy training tested in the 44 selected studies followed varying timeframes in single or multiple sessions over time, demonstrating no standard duration, and seems primarily tied to the participating workers’ availability and the desired sample size.

3.10. Limitations of the selected papers

The selected studies present some limitations (see Table 4). We already outlined the lack of definition for empathy (21 out of 44 studies) that could hinder the proper development of empathy training programs, such as module development, targeted skills, and efficiency measurements. Another primary limitation refers to sample characteristics. Most of the selected studies rely on small, almost exclusively female nurses and physicians’ samples, limiting the generalizability of the results to other service domains. The participants are mainly self-selected in hospital settings, and previous experience and training in empathy are not controlled. Besides, empathy training efficiency evaluation relies on self-report measures subjected to biases such as social desirability and does not necessarily target the actual empathy performance. There is a lack of follow-up measures that could appraise the effect of empathy training over the long term. Finally, the methods, contents, and modules implemented in the empathy training programs are unclear, limiting the possibility of replicating the training in other service settings.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

4. Discussion and research agenda

Empathy plays a crucial role in delivering a successful service experience, as supported by references to empathy in academic papers and the industry’s growing emphasis on fostering empathy in every service interaction. Consequently, the significance of empathy training is acknowledged for equipping managers and service employees (SEs) with the necessary qualities of care and compassion to effectively cater to service users (SUs) during interactions [e.g., 3]. Our systematic review aimed to identify, synthesize, and discuss empirically tested empathy training in the service sector while highlighting critical areas for future research. We meticulously analyzed 44 empirical papers published between 2009 and 2022, providing a comprehensive account of how empathy training was implemented and extensively tested. However, despite repeated calls from industry and academia for empathy training, our findings revealed a lack of interest among service scholars in developing and evaluating empathy training programs for SEs. Notably, the papers we identified exclusively focused on health services and primarily involved physicians and nurses, representing a significant gap in research in other service contexts.

While it is true that health services may have distinct requirements compared to other service domains, the empathic skills cultivated through the identified programs remain relevant in any service context where service employees (SEs) interact with service users (SUs). Our systematic review uncovered four critical skills—communication skills, relationship building, emotional resilience, and counseling—that enhanced SEs’ empathic capacity, service quality, and SU satisfaction. Service research has consistently demonstrated that these empathic skills contribute to higher perceived service quality, satisfaction [e.g., 4], and overall service experience [e.g., 5]. This is because, regardless of the nature of the service, interactions between SEs and SUs rely on empathy to establish emotional connectedness [60]. In service encounters, SEs utilize empathic displays as a professional prerequisite to address SUs’ needs and facilitate successful service delivery [61]. SEs represent the organization to SUs, fulfill its promises, enhance its reputation and image, and bolster its legitimacy through advocacy. As a result, the service encounter becomes the focal point in SUs’ evaluation of the organization [62].

Firstly, communication skills in healthcare settings pertain to the effective exchange of information between parties [e.g., 20, 35], and they are particularly relevant in service interactions that necessitate frequent and delicate exchanges [23, 57]. Similarly, communication skills play a vital role in service organizations by facilitating empathy and addressing the needs of service users (SUs). These skills encompass verbal and non-verbal communication as they convey empathy to others. For example, [63] conducted a study where professional counselors rated the empathic communication of their peers during interactions with clients. The findings revealed that non-verbal bodily cues (such as eye contact, body orientation, trunk lean, and physical distance) accounted for more than twice the variance in ratings compared to verbal messages.

Secondly, relationship-building skills in healthcare settings encompass assisting SEs in establishing effective bonds with SUs through empathy [e.g., 28, 41]. These skills are relevant in healthcare and service settings that involve prolonged interactions with vulnerable SUs [16, 38]. In service organizations, SEs’ relationship-building skills are crucial in engaging SUs in reciprocal social interactions, fostering a collaborative relationship known as emotional connectedness [64]. Emotional connectedness relies on SEs’ empathic behaviors, such as displaying friendliness [65], actively listening with empathy [4], understanding customers’ unique needs through the situational influences of their experiences [66], providing service in a prosocial manner [67], and offering personalized service and advice [68].

Thirdly, in healthcare settings, emotional resilience focuses on equipping SEs with the necessary self-regulation skills to mitigate professional and emotional burnout [e.g., 19, 23, 36]. These skills are particularly relevant in demanding and emotionally exhausting service settings [e.g., 38, 43]. Within service organizations, emotional resilience skills assist SEs in effectively managing the emotional burden associated with empathizing with SUs, which can result in stressful service interactions and emotional distress or burnout [e.g., 69]. Excessive emphasis on sharing SUs’ affective states and becoming emotionally entangled with them (referred to as self and other confusion) is more likely to induce emotional distress and burnout instead of fostering prosocial responses in SEs [e.g., 70]. Conversely, individuals who can regulate interpersonal emotions are more likely to experience empathic concern (i.e., a prosocial motivational state that promotes caring and helping; [71], p. 112) toward those in need [72].

Finally, counseling skills in healthcare settings empower SEs to support SUs through strategies such as motivational interviewing (e.g., exploring SU’s perspective; 29; 30]. In service organizations, counseling skills help SEs to acknowledge SUs’ emotional experiences and to adapt the service delivery accordingly, providing relevant counsel and support to the SUs’ situations [e.g., 66, 73].

The findings of our systematic review indicate that empathy training can be easily implemented in the workplace, with no standardized requirement for the number of sessions or duration. The training modules can also take various forms, such as simulation-based training, reflective writing, mindfulness training, or communication training, to align the specific goals of the training with the requirements of the service encounter. Therefore, the empathy training programs identified in the 44 selected studies can be readily implemented and tested in different service settings.

Empathy training programs must be consistent with the type of service users (e.g., customers or patients), their emotions, and the specific service setting. As empathy training can enhance service users’ satisfaction or improve SEs’ well-being, managers should also determine the intended targets and identify the managerial issues it aims to address. This consideration will help guide the design and implementation of effective empathy training programs in service organizations. This raises several unanswered research questions, providing exciting opportunities for further research. In addition to the limitations discussed in the previous section (refer to Table 4), we have proposed a research agenda in Table 5, highlighting the top priority areas for future research in empathy training for service employees (SEs). This research agenda addresses critical issues and suggests practical approaches for managing existing challenges and opportunities.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

4.1. How do empathy training programs adapt to the empathy definition?

The meaning of “empathy” training is too broad to be effective, and a clear definition of empathy should be provided to set the training program’s goals. Service researchers generally agree that empathy relies on an affective and a cognitive route [74]. Affective (mainly automatic) and cognitive (more controlled) routes are independent but interact to elicit empathic concern (i.e., a motivational state that promotes caring; [71]) and prosocial service behaviors [1]. However, our systematic review showed that empathy training mainly targeted the cognitive route of empathy, where trainees developed their ability to take others’ perspectives and understand them. What about the affective route of empathy? And what about the role of different components, such as empathic concern? For instance, recent studies showed that empathic concern would be more relevant than empathy [75].

Complex social interactions necessitate the simultaneous activation of both affective and cognitive pathways of empathy to gain an accurate understanding of another person’s emotional and mental states [76], as well as to evoke empathic concern [75]. Empathic concern—also called compassion—refers to the experience of having genuine feelings for others, which motivates individuals to alleviate their distress through support or consolation [71]. Empathic concern differs from empathy’s affective and cognitive pathways, although both processes contribute to its emergence [71]. Empathic concern predicts prosocial behaviors, including sharing, helping, and engaging in mutually beneficial actions [75]. In other words, when interacting with an emotionally affected individual, both affective and cognitive empathy are simultaneously activated, mediating empathic concern [71] and subsequent prosocial behaviors.

Developing a training program where empathy’s affective and cognitive routes are unbalanced is risky. Focusing on the cognitive route could foster SEs’ social disabilities: deficit in affective sharing while effectively understanding and anticipating SUs’ behavioral intentions, taking advantage of them to manipulate them [77]. Focusing on the affective route of empathy (e.g., asking SEs to identify emotionally with SUs) can elicit adverse effects, too. First, it could result in increased emotion regulation to overcome personal distress, which SUs will perceive as a lack of caring. Second, it could lead SEs to respond to SUs’ emotions according to rote rules and then make mistakes in judgment [78]. Therefore, future research on empathy training should discuss and test the pros and cons of targeting the affective or the cognitive route of empathy, or empathic concern over empathy, regarding the SEs’ professional requirements.

4.2. How do empathy training programs adapt to the SUs’ emotions?

Our systematic review revealed a significant limitation regarding the lack of attention to service users’ (SUs) emotions in empathy training programs. Empathy is a two-way process, and service employees (SEs) must manage the impact of SUs’ emotions on their emotional state while dealing with the demands of the service encounter [79]. It is essential to recognize that empathizing with angry customers in a retail setting differs from empathizing with anxious patients in a healthcare setting. When customers express anger, it can trigger mimetic and aggressive emotional responses in frontline employees (FLEs) through emotional contagion [80]. This poses a challenge as empathizing with angry customers can impair FLEs’ ability to display empathy, which is a crucial mediator of prosocial service behaviors [62]. Therefore, empathy training should take into account the emotions of SUs.

For example, consider empathizing with an angry customer in a retail store. When customers express their complaints angrily, it hurts the emotions of SEs. The anger exhibited by customers can elicit mimetic and aggressive responses in SEs through emotional contagion, leading to hostile behaviors that contradict the expected empathic display [79]. Therefore, demonstrating empathy requires SEs to regulate their mimetic response to customer anger through emotion regulation, often called emotional labor [62].

SUs’ emotions do not lead to the same empathic support expectation either. Dealing with anxious SUs requires SEs to tap into affective empathy to acknowledge a situation’s emotional impact on SUs and provide them with emotional support (i.e., direct anxiety reduction; [80]). Conversely, dealing with angry SUs requires SEs to tap into cognitive empathy to identify and understand the SUs’ needs and perspectives, providing them with problem-solving support to alter the situation that elicited anger (i.e., increased cognitive clarity; [80]). Therefore, different SUs’ emotions should elicit adaptive SEs’ empathic reactions and care. Although it can be challenging to identify one dominant emotion in a specific service context, future research should identify the most recurrent ones and adapt and test the empathy training program accordingly.

4.3. How do empathy training programs adapt to the service settings?

Service settings are not discussed in the empathy training programs we reviewed in this study, although they can significantly affect SEs’ empathy. Consider the type of service interaction, either face-to-face or mediated by technology. In face-to-face interactions, non-verbal behaviors (e.g., smiling) can “communicate an empathetic state that facilitates the development of trust and leads directly to cooperative behavior” [81, p. 10]. However, technology-mediated interactions filter for non-verbal signals of emotion (e.g., facial expressions). It can impair SEs’ empathy since sharing and inferring others’ emotions depends on unconscious mechanisms of emotion recognition and contagion [82]. Non-verbal cues are also crucial for SEs to convey empathy to customers.

The extent of filtering depends on the features of the medium. For instance, individuals infer others’ thoughts and feelings more accurately when they see a full video or hear an audio recording of their interactions, compared to silent videos or transcripts [83]. Therefore, video chat filters fewer signals because it synchronously transmits visual and audio information, whereas more filtering occurs for asynchronous, low-richness media such as email. Moreover, the filtering effect of technology-mediated communication influences affective empathy more than cognitive empathy. For instance, individuals report experiencing more cognitive empathy than affective empathy in text-based interactions [84].

Finally, the length of service interactions should be considered when developing and testing empathy training programs. Interacting with emotional SUs for a few minutes in convenient services like fast-food restaurants does not require the same effort in empathizing as interacting for a few hours or even several days in healthcare settings such as long-term care units.

4.4. How do empathy training programs adapt to unconscious biases that affect SEs’ empathy for SUs?

Service encounters are social interactions to achieve “a temporary sense of closeness” between SUs and SEs [85, p. 538]. Therefore, SUs and SEs should be matched on their psychological and personality profiles during service interactions to allow for smoother interactions and greater empathy for each other [3]. However, social group affiliation, such as ethnicity, can impair SEs’ empathy [86]. For instance, Joyce Echaquan, an Atikamekw woman who attended healthcare services in North Montreal (Canada) while suffering from pulmonary edema, faced racist slurs from the hospital staff that contributed to her death [87]. In another service context, Starbucks clerks in Philadelphia racially profiled two black customers. They were later arrested based on suspicion of trespassing, although no charges were pressed against them [88]. Those examples illustrate how unconscious biases such as racism can dramatically impair SEs’ empathy toward SUs and why they should be addressed in future empathy training programs.

In addition to ethnicity, social closeness affects the ability to empathize and receive empathy. For instance, friends are more accurate at inferring each other’s thoughts and feelings in dyadic interactions than strangers [89]. Friends also display increased interactional involvement; they look, smile, and gesture at their partners more often than strangers. Interestingly, even after controlling for this involvement, friends were still better at inferring their partner’s mental state. Friends can draw on more events and experiences outside the immediate context when interacting because of their shared knowledge of each other’s life. Therefore, interpersonal closeness influences how accurately people infer each other’s mental state, and such biases should be addressed in future empathy training programs.

4.5. How do empathy training programs adapt to the new service triad?

The shift toward automation of complex processes has significantly influenced service encounters [90], and the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a sharp demand increase in service robots (ServBots) to replace SEs [91]. ServBots refer to “system-based autonomous and adaptable interfaces that interact, communicate, and deliver service to an organization’s customers” [92, p. 909]. ServBots can handle functional operations such as carrying luggage [93] and engage in social interactions with customers through artificial empathy [94]. Therefore, ServBots will be increasingly incorporated into the new service triad—SEs, SUs, and ServBots [95]. In other words, ServBots are more likely to work with SEs rather than replace them. However, it is still unclear how SEs will accept working with ServBots during emotional situations with SUs and how SEs will empathize with SUs while interacting simultaneously with ServBots.

Recent studies show that SEs and ServBots divide tasks according to their nature: ServBots would be responsible for operational tasks, while SEs would be responsible for interactional tasks [96]. However, this new service triad creates a new dynamic at the service encounter. SEs should be trained to provide SUs care and compassion while incorporating the ServBots into the interaction. Future empathy training programs should address this new reality and develop modules where SEs work alongside ServBots during emotional service encounters with SUs.

5. Limitations of the current study

Although this review updates current knowledge on existing empathy training programs, it has some limitations. First, given the variability tied to the empathy concept, we may have missed some essential papers. However, our team was composed of experts in the field, and the search strategy was conducted by an information specialist. Second, we didn’t include grey literature. It is plausible to believe that, for example, service businesses make their “results” available other than “empirical study” publication. Third, we did not contact the authors of the selected studies to validate our analysis or ask them for more information about, for example, the empathy training programs and corresponding results. Thus, our assessment of the methodological quality is based on what is reported in the articles, and a negative score does not necessarily mean that the quality is poor but rather that the authors did not report all the information in their publication. Finally, we identified empirical papers only in the domain of health services, although we expected to find articles in service marketing and business. Nonetheless, this absence of results is a result per se, as it shows the lack of empirical research on empathy training in the service business and the need to investigate. We believe the research agenda we suggested will foster promising future research.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289793.s001

(DOCX)

S1 Appendix. Search strategy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289793.s002

(DOCX)

S1 Table. MMAT.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289793.s003

(XLSX)

Citation: Lajante M, Del Prete M, Sasseville B, Rouleau G, Gagnon M-P, Pelletier N (2023) Empathy training for service employees: A mixed-methods systematic review. PLoS ONE 18(8): e0289793. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289793

About the Authors:

Mathieu Lajante

Roles: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation: The emoLab, Ted Rogers School of Management, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1979-5785

Marzia Del Prete

Roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Economic Sciences and Statistics, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Salerno, Italy

Beatrice Sasseville

Roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: School of Psychology, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9999-1902

Geneviève Rouleau

Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Nursing Department, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Québec, Canada

Marie-Pierre Gagnon

Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Faculty of Nursing Sciences, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada

Normand Pelletier

Roles: Data curation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Business & Economics Librarian, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada

References

1. Decety J., & Jackson P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. pmid:15537986

2. Davis C., Jiang L., Williams P., Drolet A., & Gibbs B. J. (2017). Predisposing customers to be more satisfied by inducing empathy in them. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 58(3), 229–239.

3. Wieseke J., Geigenmüller A., & Kraus F. (2012). On the role of empathy in customer-employee interactions. Journal of Service Research, 15(3), 316–331.

4. Aggarwal P., Castleberry S. B., Ridnour R., & Shepherd C. D. (2005). Salesperson empathy and listening: impact on relationship outcomes. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 13(3), 16–31.

5. Umasuthan H., Park O. J., & Ryu J. H. (2017). Influence of empathy on hotel guests’ emotional service experience. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(6), 618–635.

6. Wiseman, M. (2022, June 29). What is empathy training and why do we need it? Big Think. Retrieved July 22, 2022, https://bigthink.com/plus/empathy-training/

7. Pontefract, D. (2018, June 1). Did the Starbucks racial-bias training plan work? Forbes. Retrieved July 22, 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/danpontefract/2018/06/01/did-the-starbucks-racial-bias-training-plan-work/?sh=43533819591e

8. Roberts, N. F. (2019, March 4). Walgreens tells cancer patients it’s time to ’feel more like you’ with new launch. Forbes. Retrieved July 22, 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/2019/03/04/walgreens-tells-cancer-patients-its-time-to-feel-more-like-you-with-new-launch/?sh=df7279435f95

9. Cross, M. (2021), "Banks try online games, role-playing to teach soft skills", https://www.americanbanker.com/news/banks-try-online-games-role-playing-to-teach-softskills#:~:text=Technical%20skills%20such%20as%20how,are%20harder%20to%20convey%20remotely (accessed 22 July 2022).

10. Patel S., Pelletier-Bui A., Smith S., Roberts M. B., Kilgannon H., Trzeciak S., et al. (2019). Curricula for empathy and compassion training in medical education: a systematic review. PloS One, 14(8), e0221412. pmid:31437225

11. Hoffmann T. C., Glasziou P. P., Boutron I., Milne R., Perera R., Moher D., et al. (2014). Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ, 348. pmid:24609605

12. Lam T. C. M., Kolomitro K., & Alamparambil F. C. (2011). Empathy training: Methods, evaluation practices, and validity. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 7(16), 162–200.

13. Mateen F. J., Oh J., Tergas A. I., Bhayani N. H., & Kamdar B. B. (2013). Titles versus titles and abstracts for initial screening of articles for systematic reviews. Clinical Epidemiology, 5, 89–95. pmid:23526335

14. Hong Q. N., Fàbregues S., Bartlett G., Boardman F., Cargo M., Dagenais P., et al. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291.

15. Hong Q. N., Pluye P., Bujold M., & Wassef M. (2017). Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 1–14.

16. Adamson K., Sengsavang S., Charise A., Wall S., Kinross L., & Balkaran M. (2018). Narrative training as a method to promote nursing empathy within a pediatric rehabilitation setting. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 42, e2–e9. pmid:30007769

17. Andersson L., King R., & Lalande L. (2010). Dialogical mindfulness in supervision role‐play. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 10(4), 287–294.

18. Asuero A. M, Rodríguez Blanco T., Pujol-Ribera E., Berenguera A., & Moix Queraltó J. (2013). Evaluación de la efectividad de un programa de mindfulness en profesionales de atención primaria. Gaceta Sanitaria, 27, 521–528.

19. Asuero A. M., Queraltó J. M., Pujol‐Ribera E., Berenguera A., Rodriguez‐Blanco T., & Epstein R. M. (2014). Effectiveness of a mindfulness education program in primary health care professionals: a pragmatic controlled trial. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 34(1), 4–12. pmid:24648359

20. Banerjee S. C., Manna R., Coyle N., Penn S., Gallegos T. E., Zaider T., et al. (2017). The implementation and evaluation of a communication skills training program for oncology nurses. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 7(3), 615–623. pmid:28211000

21. Banerjee S. C., Haque N., Bylund C. L., Shen M. J., Rigney M., Hamann H. A., et al. (2021). Responding empathically to patients: a communication skills training module to reduce lung cancer stigma. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 11(2), 613–618. pmid:32080736

22. Barnfather N., & Amod Z. (2012). Empathy and personal experiences of trainees in an emotional literacy and persona doll programme in South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 42(4), 598–607.

23. Boissy A., Windover A. K., Bokar D., Karafa M., Neuendorf K., Frankel R. M., et al. (2016). Communication skills training for physicians improves patient satisfaction. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 31(7), 755–761. pmid:26921153

24. Bonvicini K. A., Perlin M. J., Bylund C. L., Carroll G., Rouse R. A., & Goldstein M. G. (2009). Impact of communication training on physician expression of empathy in patient encounters. Patient Education and Counseling, 75(1), 3–10. pmid:19081704

25. Bry K., Bry M., Hentz E., Karlsson H. L., Kyllönen H., Lundkvist M., et al. (2016). Communication skills training enhances nurses’ ability to respond with empathy to parents’ emotions in a neonatal intensive care unit. Acta Paediatrica, 105(4), 397–406. pmid:26648201

26. Butlin H., Salter K. L., Williams A., & Garcia C. (2016). PracticeCALM: coaching anxiety lessening methods for radiation therapists: a pilot study of a skills-based training program in radiation oncology. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, 47(2), 147–154. pmid:31047178

27. Chen P. J., Huang C. D., & Yeh S. J. (2017). Impact of a narrative medicine programme on healthcare providers’ empathy scores over time. BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 1–8.

28. Cosper P., Kaplow R., & Moss J. (2018). The impact of patient and family advisors on critical care nurses’ empathy. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 48(12), 622–628.

29. Darnell D., Dunn C., Atkins D., Ingraham L., & Zatzick D. (2016). A randomized evaluation of motivational interviewing training for mandated implementation of alcohol screening and brief intervention in trauma centers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 60, 36–44. pmid:26117081

30. Davis M. L., Thwaites R., Freeston M. H., & Bennett‐Levy J. (2015). A measurable impact of a self‐practice/self‐reflection programme on the therapeutic skills of experienced cognitive‐behavioural therapists. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 22(2), 176–184. pmid:24464966

31. Eggenberger S. K., & Sanders M. (2016). A family nursing educational intervention supports nurses and families in an adult intensive care unit. Australian Critical Care, 29(4), 217–223. pmid:27688123

32. Forsberg L., Wickström H., & Källmén H. (2014). Motivational interviewing may facilitate professional interactions with inspectees during environmental inspections and enforcement conversations. PeerJ, 2, e508. pmid:25177533

33. Foster J. M., Smith L., Usherwood T., Sawyer S. M., & Reddel H. K. (2016). General practitioner-delivered adherence counseling in asthma: feasibility and usefulness of skills, training and support tools. Journal of Asthma, 53(3), 311–320. pmid:26365203

34. García D., Bautista O., Venereo L., Coll O., Vassena R., & Vernaeve V. (2013). Training in empathic skills improves the patient-physician relationship during the first consultation in a fertility clinic. Fertility and Sterility, 99(5), 1413–1418. pmid:23294674

35. García Llana, H., Rodríguez Rey, R., & Selgas, R. (2014). Formación en asesoramiento psicológico (counselling) y apoyo emocional a residentes de nefrología: Estudio piloto.

36. Gozalo R. G., Tarrés J. F., Ayora A. A., Herrero M. A., Kareaga A. A., & Roca R. F. (2019). Aplicación de un programa de mindfulness en profesionales de un servicio de medicina intensiva. Efecto sobre el burnout, la empatía y la autocompasión. Medicina Intensiva, 43(4), 207–216.

37. Han A., & Kim T. H. (2020). A Quasi-experimental Study Measuring the Effectiveness of Two Empathy Enhancement Programs on Caregivers Working with Older Adults Living Alone. Clinical Gerontologist, 1–10. pmid:32093528

38. Han A., & Kim T. H. (2021). A Simulation-Based Empathy Enhancement Program for Non-Medical Care Providers of Older Adults: A Mixed-Methods Study. Psychiatry Investigation, 18(2), 132. pmid:33517619

39. Halton C., & Cartwright T. (2018). Walking in a patient’s shoes: an evaluation study of immersive learning using a digital training intervention. Frontiers in Psychology, 2124.

40. Hutchinson L. M., Hastings R. P., Hunt P. H., Bowler C. L., Banks M. E., & Totsika V. (2014). Who’s Challenging Who? Changing attitudes towards those whose behaviour challenges. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 58(2), 99–109. pmid:23046106

41. Kahriman I., Nural N., Arslan U., Topbas M., Can G., & Kasim S. (2016). The effect of empathy training on the empathic skills of nurses. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal, 18(6).

42. Kahriman I., & Platin N. (2018). The Word of Adolescence That Have Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus and Empathy Development for Nurses Caring. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences, 8(2), 73–79.

43. Krasner M. S., Epstein R. M., Beckman H., Suchman A. L., Chapman B., Mooney C. J., et al. (2009). Association of an educational program in mindful communication with burnout, empathy, and attitudes among primary care physicians. JAMA, 302(12), 1284–1293. pmid:19773563

44. Kobayashi M., Ito M., Iwasa Y., Motohashi Y., Edahiro A., Shirobe M., et al. (2021). The effect of multimodal comprehensive care methodology training on oral health care professionals’ empathy for patients with dementia. BMC Medical Education, 21(1), 1–8.

45. Langewitz W., Heydrich L., Nübling M., Szirt L., Weber H., & Grossman P. (2010). Swiss Cancer League communication skills training programme for oncology nurses: an evaluation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(10), 2266–2277. pmid:20636470

46. Lusilla-Palacios P., & Castellano-Tejedor C. (2015). Training a spinal cord injury rehabilitation team in motivational interviewing. Rehabilitation Research and Practice, 2015. pmid:26770827

47. Man-Ging C. I., Böhm B., Fuchs K. A., Witte S., & Frick E. (2015). Improving empathy in the prevention of sexual abuse against children and youngsters. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24(7), 796–815. pmid:26523447

48. Maurici M., Arigliani M., Dugo V., Leo C., Pettinicchio V., Arigliani R., et al. (2019). Empathy in vaccination counselling: A survey on the impact of a three-day residential course. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 15(3), 631–636. pmid:30325260

49. Ak M., Cinar O., Sutcigil L., Congologlu E. D., Haciomeroglu B., Canbaz H., et al. (2011). Communication skills training for emergency nurses. International Journal of Medical Sciences, 8(5), 397. pmid:21750643

50. Mirzaei Maghsud A., Abazari F., Miri S., & Sadat Nematollahi M. (2020). The effectiveness of empathy training on the empathy skills of nurses working in intensive care units. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 722–731. pmid:34394695

51. Misra-Hebert A. D., Isaacson J. H., Kohn M., Hull A. L., Hojat M., Papp K. K., et al. (2012). Improving empathy of physicians through guided reflective writing. International Journal of Medical Education, 3, 71–77.

52. Narme P. (2018). Épuisement professionnel des soignants en Ehpad: rôle de l’empathie et de la formation. Gériatrie et Psychologie Neuropsychiatrie du Vieillissement, 16(2), 215–222.

53. Palanica A., Thommandram A., & Fossat Y. (2018). Eliciting clinical empathy via transmission of patient-specific symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. Cogent Psychology, 5(1), 1526459.

54. Pehrson C., Banerjee S. C., Manna R., Shen M. J., Hammonds S., Coyle N., et al. (2016). Responding empathically to patients: Development, implementation, and evaluation of a communication skills training module for oncology nurses. Patient Education and Counseling, 99(4), 610–616. pmid:26686992

55. Shao Y. N., Sun H. M., Huang J. W., Li M. L., Huang R. R., & Li N. (2018). Simulation-based empathy training improves the communication skills of neonatal nurses. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 22, 32–42.

56. Stargatt J., Bhar S., Petrovich T., Bhowmik J., Sykes D., & Burns K. (2021). The effects of virtual reality-based education on empathy and understanding of the physical environment for dementia care workers in Australia: A controlled study. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 84(3), 1247–1257. pmid:34633323

57. Tulsky J. A., Arnold R. M., Alexander S. C., Olsen M. K., Jeffreys A. S., Rodriguez K. L., et al. (2011). Enhancing communication between oncologists and patients with a computer-based training program: a randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 155(9), 593–601. pmid:22041948

58. Ullrich P., Wollbrück D., Danker H., & Singer S. (2011). Evaluation of psycho-social training for speech therapists in oncology. Impact on general communication skills and empathy. A qualitative pilot study. Journal of Cancer Education, 26(2), 294–300. pmid:20658222

59. Yamada Y., Fujimori M., Shirai Y., Ninomiya H., Oka T., & Uchitomi Y. (2018). Changes in physicians’ intrapersonal empathy after a communication skills training in Japan. Academic Medicine, 93(12), 1821–1826. pmid:30134272

60. Lajante M., Remisch D., & Dorofeev N. (2023). Can robots recover a service using interactional justice as employees do? A literature review-based assessment. Service Business, 17(1), 315–357.

61. Zeithaml V. A., Berry L. L., & Parasuraman A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46.

62. Lajante M., & Remisch D. (2023). Frontline Employees’ Empathy in Service Recovery: A Systematic Literature Review and Agenda for the Future. Customer Needs and Solutions, 10(1), 3.

63. Haase R. F., & Tepper D. T. (1972). Nonverbal components of empathic communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19(5), 417–424.

64. Pansari A., & Kumar V. (2017). Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 294–311.

65. Bitner M. J. (1995). Building service relationships: It’s all about promises. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 246–251.

66. Wilder K. M., Collier J. E., & Barnes D. C. (2014). Tailoring to customers’ needs: Understanding how to promote an adaptive service experience with frontline employees. Journal of Service Research, 17(4), 446–459.

67. Brief A. P., & Motowidlo S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710–725.

68. Coulter R. A., & Ligas M. (2004). A typology of customer‐service provider relationships: the role of relational factors in classifying customers. Journal of Services Marketing, 18(6), 482–493.

69. Verbeke W. (1997). Individual differences in emotional contagion of salespersons: Its effect on performance and burnout. Psychology & Marketing, 14(6), 617–636.

70. Miller K., Birkholt M., Scott C., & Stage C. (1995). Empathy and burnout in human service work: An extension of a communication model. Communication Research, 22(2), 123–147.

71. Marsh A. A. (2018). The neuroscience of empathy. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 19, 110–115.

72. Krol S. A., & Bartz J. A. (2021). The self and empathy: Lacking a clear and stable sense of self undermines empathy and helping behavior. Emotion, 22(7), 1554–1571. pmid:33570970

73. Gerlach G. I., Rödiger K., Stock R. M., & Zacharias N. A. (2016). Salespersons’ empathy as a missing link in the customer orientation–loyalty chain: an investigation of drivers and age differences as a contingency. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 36(3), 221–239.

74. Bove L. L. (2019). Empathy for service: benefits, unintended consequences, and future research agenda. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(1), 31–43.

75. Weisz E., & Cikara M. (2021). Strategic regulation of empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(3), 213–227. pmid:33386247

76. Zaki J., and Ochsner K. (2016), "Empathy", Feldman-Barrett L., Lewis M., Haviland-Jones J.M., Ed.s. The Handbook of Emotions, 4th (ed.), The Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 871–884.

77. Hein G., & Singer T. (2008). I feel how you feel but not always: the empathic brain and its modulation. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(2), 153–158. pmid:18692571

78. Bettencourt L. A., & Gwinner K. (1996). Customization of the service experience: the role of the frontline employee. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7(2), 3–20.

79. Dallimore K. S., Sparks B. A., & Butcher K. (2007). The influence of angry customer outbursts on service providers’ facial displays and affective states. Journal of Service Research, 10(1), 78–92.

80. Menon K., & Dubé L. (2007). The effect of emotional provider support on angry versus anxious consumers. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 268–275.

81. Gabbott M., & Hogg G. (2001). The role of non-verbal communication in service encounters: A conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(1–2), 5–26.

82. Grondin F., Lomanowska A. M., & Jackson P. L. (2019). Empathy in computer-mediated interactions: A conceptual framework for research and clinical practice. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 26(4), e12298.

83. Carrier L. M., Spradlin A., Bunce J. P., & Rosen L. D. (2015). Virtual empathy: Positive and negative impacts of going online upon empathy in young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 39–48.

84. Powell P. A., & Roberts J. (2017). Situational determinants of cognitive, affective, and compassionate empathy in naturalistic digital interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 137–148.

85. Siehl C., Bowen D. E., & Pearson C. M. (1992). Service encounters as rites of integration: An information processing model. Organization Science, 3(4), 537–555.

86. Stürmer S., Snyder M., Kropp A., & Siem B. (2006). Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role of group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 943–956. pmid:16738027

87. CBC/Radio Canada. (2021, October 2). Racism, prejudice contributed to Joyce Echaquan’s death in hospital, Quebec Coroner’s inquiry concludes | CBC News. CBCnews. Retrieved July 22, 2022, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/joyce-echaquan-systemic-racism-quebec-government-1.6196038

88. Stevens, M. (2018, April 15). Starbucks C.E.O. apologizes after arrests of 2 black men. The New York Times. Retrieved July 22, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/15/us/starbucks-philadelphia-black-men-arrest.html

89. Stinson L., & Ickes W. (1992). Empathic accuracy in the interactions of male friends versus male strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(5), 787. pmid:1593418

90. Lajante M., Tojib D., & Ho T. I. (2023). When interacting with a service robot is (not) satisfying: the role of customers’ need for social sharing of emotion. Computers in Human Behavior, 146, 107792.

91. Global Robotics Industry (2021), https://www.proquest.com/docview/2605420980?accountid=13631andparentSessionId=16Xo9vf8N6k0UcSitm23kSo%2ByMh4CYha%2FsAYdi6lr2I%3D (accessed 22 July 2022).

92. Wirtz J., Patterson P. G., Kunz W. H., Gruber T., Lu V. N., Paluch S., et al. (2018). Brave new world: service robots in the frontline. Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 907–931.

93. Christou P., Simillidou A., & Stylianou M. C. (2020). Tourists’ perceptions regarding the use of anthropomorphic robots in tourism and hospitality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(11), 3665–3683.

94. Pozharliev R., De Angelis M., Rossi D., Romani S., Verbeke W., & Cherubino P. (2021). Attachment styles moderate customer responses to frontline service robots: Evidence from affective, attitudinal, and behavioral measures. Psychology & Marketing, 38(5), 881–895.

95. Odekerken-Schröder G., Mennens K., Steins M., & Mahr D. (2021). The service triad: an empirical study of service robots, customers and frontline employees. Journal of Service Management, 33(2), 246–292.

96. Rancati G., & Maggioni I. (2022). Neurophysiological responses to robot–human interactions in retail stores. Journal of Services Marketing.