Exploring empathic strategy use in interactive dialogue applications: A latent profile and discourse analytic study

Abstract

This study investigates empathic strategy use in interactive dialogue practices and examines how these patterns emerge across distinct profile levels. Grounded in an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, the research conceptualizes empathy not as a fixed personality trait but as a context-sensitive, interactionally constructed resource. In the quantitative phase, data collected from 350 undergraduates across multiple universities were analyzed using Latent Profile Analysis (LPA), yielding four empathic strategy use profiles: high-level, balanced, selective, and low-level. These profiles reflect not only differences in usage intensity but also divergent interactional orientations. In the qualitative phase, dialogues from structured interaction tasks encompassing problem-solving, negotiation, and emotionally loaded contexts were analyzed through interactional discourse analysis. Findings indicate that high-level profile students deploy empathic strategies to sustain interaction and foster mutual understanding, whereas low-level profile students demonstrate markedly limited interactional engagement. Balanced and selective profiles exhibited context-sensitive and strategically regulated empathic responses. Collectively, the results suggest that empathic strategies constitute a dynamic and functionally significant component of interactive dialogue competence.

Keywords

• Dialogue interactions
• Empathic strategies
• Latent profile analysis

Ethical Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of scientific research and received full approval from the Scientific Research Ethics Committee of Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University (Decision No: 581, dated 25 December 2025; Official Letter No: E-95531838-050.99-160014, dated 29 December 2025).

Etkileşimli diyalog uygulamalarında empatik strateji kullanımı: Profil ve söylem analizine dayalı bir inceleme

Abstract

Bu çalışma, etkileşimli diyalog pratiklerinde empatik strateji kullanımını incelemekte ve bu örüntülerin farklı profil düzeylerinde nasıl ortaya çıktığını araştırmaktadır. Açıklayıcı karma yöntem deseni temelinde yürütülen araştırma, empatiyi sabit bir kişilik özelliği olarak değil, bağlama duyarlı ve etkileşim sürecinde inşa edilen bir kaynak olarak kavramsallaştırmaktadır. Nicel aşamada, farklı üniversitelerde öğrenim gören 350 lisans öğrencisinden elde edilen veriler Gizil Profil Analizi (LPA) ile incelenmiş ve dört empatik strateji kullanım profili belirlenmiştir: yüksek düzey, dengeli, seçici ve düşük düzey. Bu profiller yalnızca kullanım yoğunluğu açısından değil, birbirinden farklı etkileşimsel yönelimler bakımından da ayrışmaktadır. Nitel aşamada ise problem çözme, müzakere ve duygusal yük içeren bağlamları kapsayan yapılandırılmış etkileşim görevlerine ait diyaloglar, etkileşimsel söylem analizi aracılığıyla değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, yüksek düzey profil öğrencilerinin etkileşimi sürdürmek ve karşılıklı anlamayı güçlendirmek amacıyla empatik stratejilere başvurduğunu; düşük düzey profil öğrencilerinin ise etkileşimsel katılım açısından belirgin biçimde sınırlı kaldığını ortaya koymaktadır. Dengeli ve seçici profiller bağlama duyarlı ve stratejik açıdan düzenlenmiş empatik tepkiler sergilemiştir. Sonuçlar, empatik stratejilerin etkileşimli diyalog yeterliliğinin dinamik ve işlevsel açıdan anlamlı bir bileşenini oluşturduğuna işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

• Diyalog etkileşimi
• Empatik stratejiler
• Gizil profil analizi

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma, bilimsel araştırmanın etik ilkelerine uygun olarak yürütülmüş olup, Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu’ndan tam onay almıştır (Karar No: 581, tarih: 25 Aralık 2025; Resmi Yazı No: E-95531838-050.99-160014, tarih: 29 Aralık 2025).

References

1. Aldrup, K., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., Göllner, R., & Trautwein, U. (2018). Student misbehavior and teacher well-being: Testing the mediating role of the teacher-student relationship. Learning and instruction, 58, 126-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.05.006
2. Arens, A. K., Jansen, M., Preckel, F., Schmidt, I., & Brunner, M. (2021). The structure of academic self-concept: A methodological review and empirical illustration of central models. Review of educational research, 91(1), 34-72. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320972186
3. Argyle, M., & Kendon, A. (1967). The experimental analysis of social performance. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 55-98). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60342-1
4. Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jadd.000022607.19833.00
5. Berlin, K. S., Williams, N. A., & Parra, G. R. (2014). An introduction to latent variable mixture modeling (part 1): Overview and cross-sectional latent class and latent profile analyses. Journal of pediatric psychology, 39(2), 174-187. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst084
6. Bora, E., & Baysan, L. (2009). Empati Ölçeği-Türkçe Formunun Üniversite Öğrencilerinde Psikometrik Özellikleri. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bülteni, 19(1).
7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
8. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.

9. Bygate, M. (2016). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching. The language learning journal, 44(4), 381-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1039566
10. Celeux, G., & Soromenho, G. (1996). An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of classification, 13(2), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01246098
11. Chen, G. M. (2010). The impact of intercultural sensitivity on ethnocentrism and intercultural communication apprehension. Intercultural Communication Studies, 19(1), 1-9.
12. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
13. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 44(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
14. Deppermann, A. (2018). Inferential practices in social interaction. A conversation-analytic account. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 35-55. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0003
15. Dewaele, J. M. (2011). Reflections on the emotional and psychological aspects of foreign language learning and use. Anglistik: International journal of English studies, 22(1), 23-42.
16. Dornyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge.
17. Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1990). Empathy: Conceptualization, measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation and emotion, 14(2), 131-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991640
18. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 13, 125-129.
19. Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage publications limited.
20. Franke, T. M., Ho, T., & Christie, C. A. (2012). The chi-square test: Often used and more often misinterpreted. American journal of evaluation, 33(3), 448-458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214011426594
21. Galaczi, E., & Taylor, L. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 219-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1453816
22. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2014). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 194-220). Routledge.
23. Halpern, J. (2001). From detached concern to empathy: humanizing medical practice. Oxford University Press.
24. Heritage, J. (2011). Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. The morality of knowledge in conversation, 29, 159-183. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008
25. Hoffman, M. L. (1996). Empathy and moral development. The annual report of educational psychology in Japan, 35, 157-162. https://doi.org/10.5926/arpj1962.35.0_157
26. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428–444). Sage Publications, Inc.
27. Jami, P. Y., Walker, D. I., & Mansouri, B. (2024). Interaction of empathy and culture: a review. Current Psychology, 43(4), 2965-2980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04422-6
28. Lanza, S. T., Flaherty, B. P., & Collins, L. M. (2003). Latent class and latent transition analysis. Handbook of psychology, 663-685. https://doi.org/10.1002/047126385.wei0226
29. Lestari, P. V. R. (2021). Effect of empathy, emotional intelligence on interpersonal communication. International Journal of Research Publications, 82(1), 104-109. https://doi.org/10.47119/IJRP100821820212161
30. Lima, F. F. D., & Osorio, F. D. L. (2021). Empathy: assessment instruments and psychometric quality–a systematic literature review with a meta-analysis of the past ten years. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 781346. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.781346
31. Masyn, K. E. (2013). Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In T. D. Little (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods: Statistical analysis (pp. 551–611). Oxford University Press.
32. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.
33. Morin, A. J., Meyer, J. P., Creusier, J., & Biétry, F. (2016). Multiple-group analysis of similarity in latent profile solutions. Organizational research methods, 19(2), 231-254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115621148
34. Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural equation modeling: A multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535-569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
35. Pallant, J. (2020). Ebook: SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis using IBM SPSS. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452
36. Sarwer, S., Tariq, A., & Abid, M. N. (2024). Impact of teacher empathy and motivation on student academic achievement: mediated by sense of school belongingness. Journal of Higher Education and Development Studies (JHEDS), 4(1), 264-281. https://doi.org/10.59219/jheds.04.01.64
37. Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (Eds.). (2016). Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45
38. Shigeno, S. (2018). The effects of the literal meaning of emotional phrases on the identification of vocal emotions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(1), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9526-7
39. Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2012). The handbook of conversation analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
40. Slemp, G. R., Field, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Forner, V. W., Van den Broeck, A., & Lewis, K. J. (2024). Interpersonal supports for basic psychological needs and their relations with motivation, well-being, and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000459
41. Stivers, T., & Rossi, G. (2025). Finding codability: Ways to code and quantify interaction for Conversation Analysts. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 58(3), 240-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2025.2528491
42. Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1-50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
43. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Putting the human back in ‘‘human research methodology’’: The researcher in mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 4(4), 271-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689810382532
44. Thompson, J. R. (Ed.). (2023). The Routledge handbook of philosophy and implicit cognition (p. 3). Routledge.
45. Weisz, E., & Cikara, M. (2021). Strategic regulation of empathy. Trends in cognitive sciences, 25(3), 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.12.002
46. Wojciechowska, M., & Gomes, S. (2025). Fostering Soft Skills And Creativity In Higher Education: The Role Of Active Learning And Empathetic Teaching. In EDULEARN25 Proceedings (pp. 6622-6631). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2025.1630
47. Wong, L., & Mochizuki, K. (2025). Theory, Application, and Cultural Dynamics. Effective Chinese Language Teaching in Australian Higher Education: Practical Applications of Learning Chinese Linguistic (Im) politeness, 15-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-2126-5_2
48. Yasnita, Y., Hakam, A., Tertia, C. P., & Tarigan, A. R. (2025). Empathetic communication: A new paradigm in classroom management. Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan, 22(2), 447-460. https://doi.org/10.21831/jc.v22i2.85935
49. Zaki, J. (2017). Moving beyond stereotypes of empathy. Trends in cognitive sciences, 21(2), 59-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.12.004
50. Zhang, Y. S. D., & Noels, K. A. (2024). Cultural empathy in intercultural interactions: the development and validation of the intercultural empathy index. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 45(10), 4572-4590. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2173759