Understanding moral empathy: A verbatim‐theatre supported phenomenological exploration of the empathy imperative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Several studies have measured a decline in empathy during medical training, speculating that factors within the formal, informal and hidden curricula are responsible for this phenomenon. Although the medical education literature describes the moral domain of empathy as most fundamental to the empathic response, most research into the decline has examined the cognitive, affective and behavioural domains. This study distinguishes itself by focusing on how moral empathy is affected through training. METHODS: Ten medical residents from core education specialties at McMaster University participated in lightly structured interviews concerning their training experiences. Interview transcripts were analysed by way of a descriptive phenomenological approach. Analyses afforded descriptions of the way medical training influences moral empathy. These descriptions were then used to generate a verbatim theatre play that was performed for an audience of residents, educators, learners, researchers and scholars. Following the play, audience participants completed a survey to member-check the descriptions and to glean other reflective experiences in resident training that impact moral empathy. The survey results informed revisions to the codebook that was subsequently used to re-analyse the interview transcripts. This resulted in a final, refined version of the influence of training on learner moral empathy. RESULTS: The findings suggest that a resident's sense of moral empathy relies upon the notion of an innate capacity for empathy, and is influenced by their clinical and classroom education, and specific experiences with patients during training. Importantly, these factors are rarely experienced as having a direct deleterious impact on residents' moral empathy but rather are experienced as challenges to their ability to act on their moral empathy. CONCLUSIONS: The study promotes reflection of what it means to experience empathy in the moral domain. The description offers a new perspective from which to view empathic declines that have been previously reported, while also highlighting a moral-behavioural tension that has implications for competency-based assessment and the way empathy is conceptualised in medical education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".