It really touches me: How to design Empathic Journeys with It really touches me: How to design Empathic Journeys with Virtual Reality in societal challenges Virtual Reality in societal challenges

Abstract

Designers are increasingly collaborating with various stakeholders to address complex societal challenges. These challenges often require a codesign approach, where differ-ent actors with diverse perspectives and experiences unite to explore innovative ave-nues for change. Such collaboration requires empathy between the actors to under-stand each other’s perspective better in their interactions. This paper aims to assist so-cial designers in orchestrating such empathic codesign processes by introducing an Em-pathic Journey framework. This conceptual and practical framework is based on em-pathic design theory and three design cases which used Virtual Reality for perspective exchange between actors. The framework addresses the importance of integrating an emotional spark through immersion and the necessity of embedding immersive experi-ences in a larger journey.

Full text

Design Research Society Design Research Society
DRS Digital Library DRS Digital Library
DRS Biennial Conference Series DRS2024: Boston
Jun 23rd, 9:00 AM - Jun 28th, 5:00 PM
It really touches me: How to design Empathic Journeys with It really touches me: How to design Empathic Journeys with
Virtual Reality in societal challenges Virtual Reality in societal challenges
Deanne Spek
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Froukje Sleeswijk Visser
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Wina Smeenk
Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Diemen, The Netherlands
Follow this and additional works at: https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers
Part of the Art and Design Commons
Citation Citation
Spek, D., Sleeswijk Visser, F., and Smeenk, W. (2024) It really touches me: How to design Empathic
Journeys with Virtual Reality in societal challenges, in Gray, C., Ciliotta Chehade, E., Hekkert, P., Forlano, L.,
Ciuccarelli, P., Lloyd, P. (eds.),
DRS2024: Boston
, 23–28 June, Boston, USA. https://doi.org/10.21606/
drs.2024.340
This Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the DRS Conference Proceedings at DRS Digital
Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in DRS Biennial Conference Series by an authorized administrator of DRS
Digital Library. For more information, please contact dl@designresearchsociety.org.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
4.0 International Licence.
It really touches me: How to design empathic
journeys with virtual reality in societal challenges
Deanne Speka,*, Froukje Sleeswijk Vissera, Wina Smeenkb
aIndustrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands
bInholland University of Applied Sciences, Diemen, the Netherlands
*Corresponding e-mail: d.spek@tudelft.nl
doi.org/10.21606/drs.2024.340
Abstract: Designers are increasingly collaborating with various stakeholders to address
complex societal challenges. These challenges often require a codesign approach,
where different actors with diverse perspectives and experiences unite to explore
innovative avenues for change. Such collaboration requires empathy between the
actors to understand each other’s perspective better in their interactions. This paper
aims to assist social designers in orchestrating such empathic codesign processes by
introducing an Empathic Journey framework. This conceptual and practical framework
is based on empathic design theory and three design cases which used Virtual Reality
for perspective exchange between actors. The framework addresses the importance
of integrating an emotional spark through immersion and the necessity of embedding
immersive experiences in a larger journey.
Keywords: empathy, societal challenges, emotional spark, Virtual Reality
1. Introduction
Increasingly, designers are working on complex societal challenges, such as social cohesion,
safety, public health & wellbeing and energy transitions (e.g., Chen et al., 2016). These socie-
tal challenges evolve over time, and involve multiple organizations and actors with different
stakes in the problem (e.g., Irwin, 2018; Smeenk, 2021; van der Bijl-Brouwer, 2022). This net-
worked and dynamic character makes it challenging for actors to change, since efforts easily
become stranded and orphaned between people, spheres of life, disciplines and domains (Ir-
win, 2018; Smeenk, 2021). In such cases, social designers do not necessarily design end solu-
tions, but rather develop and facilitate change processes of multiple actors designing and
changing their behaviours together (Vink et al., 2021; Yee et al., 2017). For such collabora-
tion, actors need to be able to see the world from the others’ perspective: they need to have
empathy with each other (e.g., Irwin, 2018; Smeenk, 2021). A variety of researchers have
been interested in effective ways in design to immerse oneself into another perspective, for

Deanne Spek, Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Wina Smeenk
2
example through role playing, storytelling and video games (Fulton Suri, 2003; Herrera et al.,
2018; Smeenk et al., 2017; van Rijn et al., 2011). Furthermore, Virtual Reality (VR) technol-
ogy has been explored as a powerful means to experience the stories and perspectives of
others (Bailenson, 2018; De la Peña et al., 2010; Milk, 2015).
Besides perspective change techniques, several theories and models have been put forward
on how to deploy empathic processes in design. Kouprie & Sleeswijk Visser (2009) and
Smeenk et al. (2019) have specifically proposed models to guide designers in creating empa-
thy with users they design for. These models hold promise to be used with groups of actors
as well. Yet, techniques and tools to support social designers and other team members (fur-
ther referred to as design team) in designing processes which use empathy between actors
to achieve systemic transformation in social interactions and collaboration are still limited.
In this paper, the main question is how (social) design teams can design empathic interven-
tions using VR as part of systemic transformation processes in a variety of societal chal-
lenges? We review three real life cases that used 360-degrees VR through a head mounted
display to change mindsets and behaviours of actors through immersive experiences. In nine
interviews, design team members reflect on the designed activities before, during and after
immersion and provide recommendations for future design teams. We relate the insights
from these case studies to the empathic design models of Kouprie & Sleeswijk Visser (2009)
and Smeenk et al. (2019), and integrate these findings into a unified practical Empathic Jour-
ney framework for design teams working on societal challenges. Finally, we discuss the im-
plications of this framework for social design and further research desired to explore other
means than VR to be used in the journey.
2. Empathy in design
Empathy has received ample attention in design for the past two decades. Designers should
be able to “step into the user’s shoes” (Fulton Suri, 2003). Empathy is seen as people’s intui-
tive ability to identify with others’ lived experiences, such as thoughts, feelings, motivations,
emotional and mental models, values, priorities, preferences and inner conflicts (Fulton Suri,
2003). Empathy increases when people consciously alternate between directing their atten-
tion to their own perspective and to the perspective of the other, while also alternating be-
tween affective experiences and cognitive processes (Hess & Fila, 2016; Kouprie & Sleeswijk
Visser, 2009; Sleeswijk Visser & Kouprie, 2008; Smeenk et al., 2019). The whole process of
stepping in, immersing and stepping out of other’s perspectives and thereby increasing em-
pathy with other(s) can be referred to as empathic formation (Hess & Fila, 2016). By immers-
ing in those perspectives, people gain affective experiences which they can subsequently
translate (cognitive activity) and use to derive new and fresh insights. In this paper, we will
call the person stepping in and out of the perspective of the other the empathiser.
In the design context, two notable models stand out for their ability to facilitate empathy in
the design process. First, Kouprie & Sleeswijk Visser (2009) introduced the Empathy in De-

It really touches me
3
sign model based on empathy theories from psychology and sociology. The model is devel-
oped to guide individual designers in building empathy with the user(s) they design for and
in conveying their empathic understanding of the users. This approach outlines four phases
of empathy in design: discovery, immersion, connection, and detachment. In the discovery
phase, designers develop willingness to engage with users and to explore their contexts. In
the immersion and connection phases, designers immerse themselves in the users’ contexts
and subsequently connect to the users’ feelings, as well as for their own feelings. In the de-
tachment phase, designers step out of the other’s perspective and gains insights, see Figure
1a.
Figure 1 Two notable design models
Building upon this model, and drawing from Hess & Fila (2016) and insights from Baldner &
McGinley (2014), Smeenk et al. (2019) developed the Empathic Formation Compass. This
model focuses on four dimensions of empathic formation a designer can flexibly move
through: emotional interest, sensitivity, personal experiences and self-awareness, see Figure
1b. Emotional interest and curiosity toward others already arise when designers cognitively
take a perspective on others through activities like reading theories or viewing documen-
taries. Sensitivity develops through direct contact and engagement with stakeholders in the
real or in a digital world, allowing designers to relate to others and their context. This relat-
ing to and sharing of similar personal experiences fosters deeper connection. Moreover, self-
awareness grows as designers reflect on potential biases in their personal experiences or
stakes in a similar context.
The two models are connected. For example, the discovery phase leads to emotional inter-
est, and depending on the activities to sensitivity. The immersion and connection result in
sensitivity and personal experiences. Both models hold value in the broader context of de-

Deanne Spek, Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Wina Smeenk
4
sign addressing societal challenges with various actors, though they were originally devel-
oped for more traditional design practices. We use both models as a lens for the interviews
with the (social) design team members of the three cases and as a basis for composing the
subsequent Empathic Journey framework using VR to evoke empathy among actors in socie-
tal challenges.
3. Method
Three cases were selected to distil insights into how to design and organise empathic inter-
ventions using VR with the intent to promote mindset, culture and behavioural change
within the actors involved to foster collaboration. In each case, VR is used to allow empathis-
ers to develop empathy with other actors. In the first two cases the second and third author
were involved in designing and evaluating the interventions (see Table 1). These cases were
informed by the models of Kouprie & Sleeswijk Visser (2009) and Smeenk et al. (2019). We
included a third case that had no connection to our own work in order to evaluate whether
the insights we extracted from the first two cases were more generally applicable and mean-
ingful for similar cases.
For each of the cases, the first independent author reviewed project documentation and in-
terviewed design team members (e.g., initiators, designers and project managers) of each
case with the following selection criteria:
• At least one person who was involved in the whole process, from the first idea
to implementation
• At least one person who interacts/interacted with participants during
implementation
• At least one of the designers involved in the project.
In total nine interviews were held. The goal of the interviews was to better understand what
flow of activities were intentionally designed for the empathiser and what the team learned
about designing such activities in hindsight.
4. The three cases
The journey and included actors for each of the cases is described below. Table 1 provides
practical information about the cases.
Table 1 Overview of cases
Case 1: Improving
dementia care
Case 2: Improving social
cohesion
Case 3: Solving crime
Project
information
www.intodmentia.nl
www.fabrique.com/cases/
digital-
transformation/bubble-
games
www.vrowl.nl/recherche-
zet-virtual-reality-training-
in-bij-strijd-tegen-
personeelstekort

It really touches me
5
Project
coalition
Healthcare organizations,
consultancy agency, design
agency and universities
Local governmental
organisations
(municipality, social
workers, police), two
design agencies, VR film
production company, and
university
Police department, VR
production company,
police education
foundation
Societal aim
Better quality of life and
work practices for
(in)formal caregivers and
people with dementia
Reducing tensions in a
neighbourhood between
socially opposed groups
Improving the self-
confidence and skills of
insecure (often new)
detectives
VR experience
VR simulation
by interactive experience
(16 min)
VR film
by 3D viewing
(7min)
VR training
by interactive experience
(60min)
Authors’
involvement
3rd author
2nd author
External case
Project time
span
10 plus years
2 years
2 years
Number of
actors who
have been
empathiser
(until July 2023)
Physical simulator: 4000
VR film: 7000
VR interactive experiences:
9000
4 (2 of each group) and
~500 citizens of the
neighbourhood
40-650 detectives
Past evaluative
research
The actors’ empathic
formation (among others)
was evaluated 15 months
after the simulation visit by
geriatric researchers.
Results show that of the
145 actors, the experience
was positively reviewed by
87,1%. Thus resulting in
more understanding and
ability to understand and
support people with
dementia (Hattink et al.,
2015).
The actors’ increase of
empathy and motivation
to change the situation
was measured before,
during and after the event
by researchers of the
project team.
Results show that there
was a strong increase of
empathy within all four
actors, even weeks after
the events (Sleeswijk
Visser & van Erp, 2023).
The added value of the VR
training on the actor’s
understanding, abilities
and mindset was evaluated
by a consultancy agency.
Results show that the
understanding of the
senior perspective
increased, thereby
improving the skills and
attitude of the junior
detectives in doing a crime
investigation
(TwynstraGudde, 2022).

Deanne Spek, Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Wina Smeenk
6
4.1 Case 1: Improving dementia care
In the dementia case, the empathisers are formal caregivers (those working in the care insti-
tution) and informal caregivers (those caring for a loved one) of people with dementia. Via a
VR simulator, (in)formal caretakers become a person with dementia (see Figure 2) to trigger
reflection on their own behaviour, thereby improving the relationship between informal
caregivers, formal caregivers and people with dementia. Figure 2 shows the steps the empa-
thisers go through. In the simulation, which represents a living-kitchen, the empathiser is
guided by an inner voice through audio. These inner thoughts and the experiences depend
and react on the actions the empathiser takes with the controllers in the VR environment,
such as gazing and putting groceries in a fridge. Throughout the experience, several authen-
tic (based on real live) and recognizable (based on theory) situations unfold. By interacting
with the (in)formal caregivers in the VR environment, empathisers experience also them-
selves through the eyes of someone with dementia. After this immersion, personal reflection
with a host and a variety of behavioural change interventions follow.
4.2 Case 2: Improving social cohesion between citizens
In this case, tensions grow between young people and residents about the use of public
space such as noise disturbance, after a series of troubled events in their neighbourhood. To
promote mutual understanding of each other’s perspective on and experience of the ten-
sions between the two groups, two young people and two residents view a VR film about
the other group (see Figure 3). To make the films, a film crew joins each of them to docu-
ment a day in their everyday lives and their thoughts and feelings about the tensions in the
neighbourhood. Watching the VR film of the other group allows the empathisers to be im-
mersed into the context of the others: they can literally look around in their homes, their
families and their daily rituals. The intention of the case team is to support empathisers to
get to know the other as an individual person instead of a member of the other (opposing)
group. The film-viewing is followed by a facilitated co-creative session to collectively come
up with solutions for the neighbourhood.
4.3 Case 3: Solving crime scenes
Previously, junior detectives learned about doing a crime scene investigation on the field,
feeling unprepared and insecure about their own skills. The VR training allows them to take
their time for experiencing how a senior detective would address a crime scene investiga-
tion, thereby gaining skills and knowledge applicable to their first real cases. The junior de-
tective is thus the empathiser, see Figure 4. The training is designed for the empathiser to go
through while being guided in person by a senior detective in and in VR by a senior detec-
tive. In VR, the empathiser can interact with objects and people to retrieve information
about the possible crime. The collected information can be clustered in a separate ‘thought
room’ inside the VR, resembling the whiteboard normally used in the office. Both in interact-
ing with the objects and clustering in the thought room, empathisers can compare their view
with the perspective of the senior VR-detective. As in case one and two, the VR immersion is
followed by several reflection activities, see Figure 4.

It really touches me
7
Figure 2 Activities formulated by interviewees of the dementia case

Deanne Spek, Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Wina Smeenk
8
Figure 3 Activities formulated by interviewees of the social cohesion case

It really touches me
9
Figure 4 Activities formulated by interviewees of the crime scene case
5. Findings
In two analysis on-the wall sessions (Sanders & Stappers, 2012), case study activities with
similar goals or similar envisioned effects on the empathiser were grouped together, result-
ing in seven fruitful elements for designing empathic journeys (see Figure 5). The elements

Deanne Spek, Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Wina Smeenk
10
were clustered in phases according to the two theoretical empathic design models, resulting
in an initial Empathic Journey framework. Each element is described in more detail below
with a summary and a description of i) the aspects intentionally designed and ii) those
deemed relevant in hindsight by the interviewees. The framework was validated by evaluat-
ing the insights with the interviewees.
Figure 5 Analysis on the wall session example

It really touches me
11
5.1 Elements to be designed in empathic journeys for societal change
A. Acknowledge the challenging situation
Interviewees emphasised the importance of acknowledging empathisers’ challenging situa-
tion: for the difficulty of taking care of a person with dementia (case 1), the subtleness of
avoiding prejudice during recruitment (case 2) or the insecurity around a first crime scene
(case 3). All cases invested time in understanding the challenging situation of the empathis-
ers and making them feel welcome and seen. Table 2 shows that design teams should design
with emotional interest and sensitivity, which is for example expressed in the design of the
atmosphere, the tone of voice and the time given to the empathiser.
Table 2 Acknowledge the challenging situation
Acknowledge the challenging situation
Designed intentionally
Relevant in hindsight
Case 1
• Host addresses the difficulty of
taking care of someone with
dementia, focussing on the
(in)formal caretaker in the intake
conversation.
• Recognition for the difficulty of
taking care for people with
dementia is demonstrated by care
institutions and other organisations
in purchasing the VR simulator;
• The dementia simulator as a product
is in itself is an acknowledgement of
the problematic situation of
dementia.
Case 2
• Citizens are asked to share their
perspectives during information
sessions in the neighbourhood.
• Being sensitive and using the right
tone of voice during recruitment are
essential;
• Taking time for listening and
creating a safe space are needed for
empathisers to open up and tell
their story;
• The visit of the film crew, where the
empathisers are interviewed,
followed for a day and filmed, is
itself an acknowledgement of their
situation.
Case 3
• In each police department an
ambassador is assigned with the
task to acknowledge the insecurity
of junior detectives and propose
the VR training as a solution.

Deanne Spek, Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Wina Smeenk
12
B. Guide in opening up
Empathisers need to open up for the other, cognitively and affectively, increasing their emo-
tional interest and sensitivity for the other(s). An explicit activity for creating a comfortable
safe space and stimulating curiosity for the other(s) will enhance the effect of the immersive
experience and thereby support in starting the empathising process. Table 3 shows that
seemingly unimportant contextual elements, such as the ease of planning the experience or
the recommendation by a colleague/friend, can influence receptiveness.
Table 3 Guide in opening up
Guide in opening up
Designed intentionally
Relevant in hindsight
Case 1
• Host explicitly asks the empathiser
to open up for what is to come in
the intake, to let go of rational
thoughts and to just experience.
• Word-of-mouth, having colleagues
or friends recommend the
experience increases people to be
curios and willing for a visit;
• With younger empathisers (15-25
years) a young host who speaks
their language is needed to engage
them compared to an older host.
Case 2
• Becoming self-aware about their
own perspective and values
regarding the neighbourhood issues
through dedicated attention of film
making days, helps in being more
receptive to discover about the
other.
Case 3
• Making sure the process of finding a
senior detective, planning the
training and collecting the materials
is easy and happens smoothly, result
in the empathiser being more open
and curious for the VR training.
C. Prepare for (technological) means
Interviewees explained that while most empathisers are attracted to the technological
means of experiencing VR, the insecurities about this technology can be a barrier to fully im-
merse: empathisers can become cognitively distracted instead of immersing in the VR expe-
riences. In case 1 and 3, the empathisers have to interact with objects and other persons in
the VR environment, which requires practicing with the technology beforehand. Table 4
shows how the preparation for the VR was designed in different cases.
Table 4 Prepare for (technological) means

It really touches me
13
Prepare for (technological) means
Designed intentionally
Relevant in hindsight
Case 1
• Host explains how the technology
(headset, headphones and
controllers) works;
• Short training inside the VR
environment.
• Older people need more time and
encouragement before they want or
dare to use VR technology;
• Younger people need explanation
that the VR simulation is not a fast
game experience.
Case 2
• Host provides a short technical
instruction and makes sure
empathisers feel comfortable.
Case 3
• Empathiser goes through an
elaborate tutorial to practice, with
test questions which have to be
answered correctly before moving
on.
D. Evoke an emotional spark
Interviewees of all cases observed that empathisers were impacted emotionally by immers-
ing in the experiences of other(s) and connected to the accompanying feelings of other(s).
Herewith, not only their sensitivity towards the other was activated, but they also created
first- or second-hand experiences which made them personally touched and sometimes
even hurt. This emotional spark appeared a crucial element to evoke empathic formation in
all cases according to the interviewees. Table 5 shows that the attention of detail of the de-
sign enhances the depth, sense of presence and impact of the experience. The interactive
tasks enhance the connection to others. The personalised and customised settings, and
props make the individual experience relatable and familiar. Moreover, this adds a layer of
emotional connection to the experience, maximizing the immersive effect.
Table 5 Evoke an emotional spark
Evoke an emotional spark
Designed intentionally
Relevant in hindsight
Case 1
• A first-person perspective
experience makes empathisers feel
belittled and misunderstood;
• Personal and recognizable details
(storing the fridge, clock ticking);
• Doing tasks improves immersion and
emotional affect;
• Emotional spark is personal and is
noticed by empathisers at different
moments/scenes in the immersive
experience

Deanne Spek, Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Wina Smeenk
14
• Tuning the experience to the
empathiser (male voice and hands
for male etc.) supports immersion;
• Hearing and visualizing inner
thoughts.
Case 2
• A second-person perspective
experience makes empathisers
literally feel close to the other(s);
• The films provide peaks into the
personal lives of others full with
details and narratives which
contained emotional elements.
• Personal details of the home (stuff
in the bin, on the kitchen table,
other family members, view from
their window etc.) provide a strong
sense of intimacy which struck
empathisers.
Case 3
• A first-person perspective
experience supports the empathiser
in internalizing the perspective;
• Recognizable objects from the
workplace (e.g., waste bin);
• Being able to interact with all
objects and people;
• Integrating several unexpected and
slightly emotional events (a
disturbing and shouting neighbour
entering the garden).
• Difficulty with technology is a
barrier for achieving an emotional
spark.
E. Facilitate personal reflection
The experienced emotional spark prompts a desire for debriefing and a motivation to share
experiences. According to the interviewees, this momentum should directly be grasped,
emotionally supported and used for internalising and reflecting on the experience from iter-
atively first- and second-person perspectives. Discussing the experience and its impact can
help the empathiser process their emotions and insights gained during immersion, and to
connect them to their own experiences in daily life. Table 6 shows that such a reflection can
best be facilitated by another person and should be adapted to fit the empathisers: their
emotional state, and the capabilities.
Table 6 Facilitate personal reflection
Facilitate personal reflection
Designed intentionally
Relevant in hindsight
Case 1
• Host supports the empathiser to
reflect on those scenes that had the
most impact, as these point
towards important lessons, during
offboarding;
• Find a balance between helping the
empathiser to let go of the heavy
emotions experienced and
supporting the empathiser in
sustaining the feelings and insights
to build upon later.

It really touches me
15
• Host explains the idea behind some
of the scenes, why the themes are
essential for a person with
dementia.
Case 2
• Informally: while taking off the VR
goggles, host asks empathisers
what the immersive experience did
to them.
• Join first informal moments of
reflection, such as a small cigarette
break of the empathisers after
watching the VR film.
Case 3
• Reflection is facilitated by providing
a template with questions to fill
individually.
• Tools and questions to support
reflection are needed as self-
reflection is not a common practice
in police departments.
F. Generate and support actionable insights
According to the interviewees, defining actionable insights and practicing new mindsets and
behaviours to prolong the momentum of the emotional spark and first reflections requires a
more cognitive approach than the immediate reflection of element E. Interviewees report
that these new mindsets and behaviours should not be imposed, but formulated in exchange
with peers or experts in order to develop ownership and intrinsic motivation for this change.
Such processes require helping the empathisers recognize that the way they act does not
align with how they would like to act (based on the experienced perspective changes), in-
creasing self-awareness, and formulating new possibilities. The importance of doing this col-
lectively is shown in all three cases (see Table 7): peer group meeting (case 1), co-creation
session (case 2) and discussion (case 3). Furthermore, the cases show that making the new
insights tangible via personal stories (in case 1 from peers and in case 3 from the senior de-
tective) or objects (the maquette in case 2) supports both the creation of actionable insights
and motivation for change.
Table 7 Generate and support actionable insights
Generate and support actionable insights
Designed intentionally
Relevant in hindsight
Case 1
• Informal caregivers receive a book
and movie which contain
information, tips and tricks.
• Formal caregivers receive a book
and an E-learning which provides
explanations about the scenes
and a theoretical foundation for
formal caregivers to build upon in
their work;
• In person support and exchanging
experiences is effective and supports
intrinsic motivation for change;
• Exchanging personal experiences with
peers is useful because recognizing
other’s stories, and providing and
receiving tips (reciprocal) inspires
change and keeps the momentum
alive;

Deanne Spek, Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Wina Smeenk
16
• Both groups of empathisers join
group sessions to discuss their
experiences and connect these to
their daily life or work.
• Tips seem better accepted when
coming from peers in a similar
situation than from a professional or
expert.
Case 2
• Empathisers are guided through a
co-creation session in which they
exchange ideas to improve the
issues in the neighbourhood, a 3D
maquette of the neighbourhood
is used as a neutral object to
discuss ideas;
• Coming up with the solution
themselves, results in motivation
to of empathisers bring the idea
further.
• Directly dividing tasks and making
agreements ensures that the energy
and momentum of empathisers being
highly motivated to change the
situation is prolonged.
Case 3
• Empathiser discusses with a
senior detective what the
implications of the training are for
future behaviour on the crime
scene;
• Empathiser receives a card
summarizing the main learning
points, and a sheet with self-
check questions for the crime
investigations to come.
• Personal stories and tips from the
senior detective help the empathiser
to make sense of the materials and to
be better prepared for the crime
investigations to come.
G. Internalize and sustain new behaviour by repetition
Interviewees mentioned that the motivation for changing toward prosocial behaviour can
quickly diminish and therefore sustained activation should be included to support empathis-
ers in creating habitual routines of their new behaviours (i.e., long-term activation). Recur-
ring emotional sparks addressing the emotional interest of empathisers will probably be nec-
essary to keep this intrinsic motivation and personal drive up, since behavioural change is
hard work. As Table 8 shows, in all three cases the importance of this repetition and long-
term support is emphasised.
Table 8 Internalize and sustain new behaviour by repetition
Internalize and sustain new behaviour by repetition
Designed intentionally
Relevant in hindsight
Case 1
• Peer sessions are created to last
until new habits are internalized.
• Positioning the journey -including
peer sessions afterwards- as a whole
package empowers to change
behaviour. Results will be
disappointing and short-term if new

It really touches me
17
habits are not continuously
inflamed.
Case 2
• A ‘project movie’ in VR, combining
the VR experiences of the younger
people and residents allows for
organizing local viewings with the
aim to engage at community level,
beyond the four empathisers.
• Early involvement of actors with
implementation power (in this case
the municipality) and creating
actionable deliverables is needed to
transfer ownership and empower
other actors to proceed with the
changes.
Case 3
• The tools support internalization of
the new knowledge and skills, as
they can be brought to every crime
scene case;
• Empathisers repeat the VR after six
months to learn about their
progress and to support further
behaviour change as empathisers
often find new tips and tricks.
• Redoing the training after six
months, not only ensures
habituation of the behaviours and
insights developed during the first
session, but also sparks motivation
for new knowledge to develop and
new behaviours to form.
5.2 Empathic Journey framework
The seven elements above were clustered and plotted into four phases. Moreover, we
mapped these elements and phases onto the two earlier empathic design models. The result
is an emerging Empathic Journey framework to design for empathy in societal challenges,
see Figure 6. As part of the broader context and higher aim of social design, we visualise the
framework embedded in a prior development phase and later system change process. Below
we discuss the four phases labelled as onboarding, immersion, offboarding and activation.

Deanne Spek, Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Wina Smeenk
18
Figure 6 The framework for designing Empathic Journeys with VR in societal challenges
The first phase, onboarding, is about guiding empathisers in developing curiosity, emotional
interest and sensitivity with other(s) (Kouprie & Sleeswijk Visser, 2009; Smeenk et al., 2019).
The first three elements (A-C) gradually involve and prepare empathisers for the peak part of
the Empathic Journey: the emotional spark. Onboarding starts off by arousing the empa-
thiser’s emotional interest through acknowledging their challenging situations (element A)
and by guiding them in opening up both affectively (element A and B) and practically (ele-
ment C).
The second phase is immersion. Through the intervention of technology and design, the em-
pathisers are fully immersed in the world of other(s), enrol in affective experiences and en-
liven an emotional spark (element D). Empathisers allow connection with the perspective of
the other through attending their own experiences and feelings during the intervention. The
immersion phase makes the empathiser sensitive and receptive to the other and their own
perspectives simultaneously (Smeenk et al., 2019). It is a rather passive state, in which em-
pathisers do not interpret and judge, but just experience and connect (Kouprie & Sleeswijk
Visser, 2009; Stephan, 2023). Ideally the experience touches on tacit knowledge such as val-
ues and norms (Sanders & Stappers, 2012).
The third phase is offboarding. This phase further emphasizes the connection between the
affective experiences of the other and the self by discussing them with another person,

It really touches me
19
thereby connecting and detaching (Kouprie & Sleeswijk Visser, 2009) from the other’s per-
spective and becoming self-aware (Smeenk et al., 2019). While elements A-D gradually in-
volve the empathiser, element E ensures empathisers can let go of their first emotions and
go back to their daily life with new insights. The immersive experience and connection trig-
gers motivation in empathisers to change mindsets, interactions and behaviours and to align
them with their (under the iceberg) values and norms (Smeenk, 2022).
The last phase, activation, addresses the underlying aim of integrating Empathic Journeys in
multi-actor social design challenges: changing mindsets and behaviour which can improve
collaboration and affect positive societal change (e.g., Chen et al., 2016; Vink et al., 2021).
The experiences and reflections of the previous phases are used to generate actionable in-
sights and formulate new possible behaviour on the short-term (element F), and to internal-
ize and sustain those behaviours on the long-term by repeated affective experiences and re-
flection (element G) to enhance the ability to act (Sangiorgi, 2011). While the emotional
spark and reflection result in willingness to act (Kouprie & Sleeswijk Visser, 2009) and maybe
lead to short-term behavioural change, a more cognitive endeavour and support in repeti-
tion of new interactions are needed for habitual change. This also means iterations of such
journeys over time.
6. Discussion
Our review of the three cases demonstrates that a strong and valuable synthesis can be
made between the two empathic design models and the practical insights from the cases.
The Empathy in Design model (Kouprie & Sleeswijk Visser, 2009) provides for the Empathic
Journey phases to be designed, whereas the Empathic Formation Compass (Smeenk et al.,
2019) complements this by describing the deliberate cultivation of a specific state of mind in
these phases. This is achieved by stimulating and promoting a methodological orientation
towards first-person, second-person, and third-person perspectives (Smeenk et al., 2016).
The Empathic Journey framework builds forth on these models, adapting and expanding its
steps to better suit the needs of social design teams working on complex societal challenges
with the support of VR. This adaptation includes a more comprehensive engagement with
other actors in the same challenge and the incorporation of multiple perspectives, ultimately
aiming to create more effective opportunities and idea directions for our grand, multifac-
eted societal challenges. This results in a conceptual and practical framework highlighting
how to address the unique context and goals of (social) design teams working on complex
societal issues, as opposed to traditional design work.
In summary, the framework addresses the necessity of embedding immersive experiences in
a larger journey. The immersion phase, featuring the emotional spark activity, stands as an
indispensable component in the formulation of an Empathic Journey, but without onboard-
ing and herewith purposely facilitating an ‘opening up’ process, this emotional spark is not
likely to happen. After the immersive experience, reflection in the offboarding phase needs
to be supported for actors to change. Without reflection after immersion, such change is less

Deanne Spek, Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Wina Smeenk
20
likely to happen. Lastly, to sustain actors’ mindset change and motivation for positive behav-
ioural change, short- and long-term activation and repetition of empathic sparks are needed.
However, further research is needed to develop our conceptual framework in more detail,
and to investigate for which societal problems it proves beneficial. Besides, since the frame-
work is based on two empathic design models with no specific connection to VR, we foresee
applicability of this framework in non-VR cases as well. For example, in the onboarding
phase the specific manner of preparing empathisers for (technological) means is contingent
upon the specific context and means, VR in this case. Still, empathisers may not only become
cognitively distracted by VR technology (instead of immersing in the VR experiences). The
same distraction by the means can happen in for example role play, where empathisers
could feel insecure about their abilities. Preparing and supporting the actor in this is then
necessary in non-VR cases as well. Furthermore, also in VR the onboarding should not solely
focus on technological preparation, but also on emotional preparation for the perspective
change to come. Empathising in real life also requires emotional interest (Smeenk, 2018).
The restriction to VR cases is a first limitation of this study. Though much research is cur-
rently oriented towards technology development, such as exploring possibilities of VR to cre-
ate new immersive experiences, we emphasize the accompanying need for research on de-
sign methodologies to embed empathic formation in social design processes. The second
limitation is the limited number of cases which vary greatly in context, set up, how the inter-
vention was developed and evaluated, but do not necessarily cover a generalisable set of so-
cietal challenges. Furthermore, the three cases do not use similar evaluation techniques (Ta-
ble 1).
We are therefore planning further research in different contexts with different (technologi-
cal) means and focus on the sequencing and significance of the four phases, the specific role
of the actors’ personal perspective and experience, and integration of the Empathic Journey
in the larger systemic change. As we aim to do several case studies as part of one research
project, set-up and evaluation will be comparable (while still context dependent). Alto-
gether, we expect the Empathic Journey framework to provide designers insight in how to
design immersive experiences that support and utilize empathic formation of actors as part
of systemic transformation processes toward societal change.
7. Conclusion
This paper unveils a framework for designing Empathic Journeys to be used in multi-actor
societal challenges, based on empathic design theory and a review of three real life VR-
cases, tailored to catalyse behavioural transformations. It explains which seven elements
need to be designed to create empathy among actors as a means for igniting behavioural
change and collaboration. The framework provides designers with recommendations on how
to design and organise activities to support empathic formation, which is described in four
phases: onboarding to open up and prepare actors for the immersion to come, immersion to
understand other actors’ perspectives, offboarding to reflect on the immersive experiences
and to connect one’s own experiences with the challenging situation at stake, and activation

It really touches me
21
to generate and sustain new actionable insights, regarding mindset and behavioural change
on the long-term. The Empathic Journey framework holds potential for contributing to the
broader aims of societal and systemic transformation.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Corrie Aarts, Ben Janssen, Wiebe
Cnossen, Liesbeth Bonekamp, Peter van Apeldoorn, Corine Laman and Roxy van de
Langkruis for providing information and dedicating their time to join the interviews.
8. References
Bailenson, J. (2018). Experience on demand: What virtual reality is, how it works, and what it can do.
WW Norton & Company.
Baldner, C., & McGinley, J. J. (2014). Correlational and exploratory factor analyses (EFA) of commonly
used empathy questionnaires: New insights. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 727-744.
Chen, D.-S., Cheng, L.-L., Hummels, C., & Koskinen, I. (2016). Social design: An introduction.
International Journal of Design, 10(1), 1-5.
De la Peña, N., Weil, P., Llobera, J., Spanlang, B., Friedman, D., Sanchez-Vives, M. V., & Slater, M.
(2010). Immersive journalism: Immersive virtual reality for the first-person experience of news.
Presence, 19(4), 291-301.
Fulton Suri, J. (2003). Empathic design: Informed and inspired by other people’s experience.
Empathic design: User experience in product design, 51-58.
Hattink, B. J., Meiland, F. J., Campman, C. A., Rietsema, J., Sitskoorn, M., & Dröes, R.-M. (2015). Zelf
dementie ervaren: Ontwikkeling en evaluatie van de Into D’mentia simulator. Tijdschrift voor
gerontologie en geriatrie, 5(46), 262-281.
Herrera, F., Bailenson, J., Weisz, E., Ogle, E., & Zaki, J. (2018). Building long-term empathy: A
largescale comparison of traditional and virtual reality perspective-taking. PLOS ONE, 13(10),
e0204494.
Hess, J. L., & Fila, N. D. (2016). The manifestation of empathy within design: findings from a
servicelearning course. CoDesign, 12(1-2), 93-111.
Irwin, T. (2018). The emerging transition design approach. Cuadernos del Centro de Estudios en
Diseño y Comunicación. Ensayos(73), 147-179.
Kouprie, M., & Sleeswijk Visser, F. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out
of the user's life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437-448.
Milk, C. (2015). How Virtual Reality can create the ultimate empathy machine.
https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_milk_how_virtual_reality_can_create_the_ultimate_empathy_
machine Retrieved July first 2023.
Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of
design. Bis.
Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Transformative services and transformation design. International Journal of
Design, 5(2), 29-40.
Sleeswijk Visser, F. & Kouprie, M. (2008) Stimulating empathy in ideation workshops. Proceedings of
Participatory Design Conference, Indianapolis, p. 174-177.
Sleeswijk Visser, F., & van Erp, J. (2023). Empathy building through Virtual Reality filmmaking in social
innovation: decreasing tensions between socially opposed citizens. Strategic Design Research
Journal 16(1).

Deanne Spek, Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Wina Smeenk
22
Smeenk, W. (2021). De wereld gekanteld: de maatschappelijke impact van de evoluerende
ontwerppraktijk [Lectorale rede, Hogeschool Inholland]. HBO Kennisbank.
https://hbokennisbank.nl/details/sharekit_inholland:oai:surfsharekit.nl:46c86c81-cdab-4e35-
84b6-2e0779ea19af
Smeenk, W. (2022). Societal impact design: Empathic and systemic co-design as a driver for change.
In P. Joore, G. Stompff, J. van den Eijnde (Eds.), Applied Design Research (pp. 147-156). CRC Press.
Smeenk, W., Sturm, J., & Eggen, B. (2019). A comparison of existing frameworks leading to an
empathic formation compass for co-design. International Journal of Design, 13(3), 53-68.
Smeenk, W., Sturm, J., & Eggen, B. (2017). Empathic Handover: How would you feel? Handing over
dementia experiences and feelings in empathic co-design. CoDesign: International Journal of
CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 1-16. Taylor & Francis.
Smeenk, W., Sturm, J., Terken, J., & Eggen, B. (2018). A systematic validation of the empathic
handover approach guided by five factors that foster empathy in design. CoDesign: International
Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 15(4), 308-328. Taylor & Francis
Smeenk, W., Tomico, O., & van Turnhout, K. (2016). A systematic analysis of mixed perspectives in
empathic design: Not one perspective encompasses all. International Journal of Design, 10(2), 31-
48
Stephan, C. (2023). The passive dimension of empathy and its relevance for design. Design studies,
86, 101179.
TwynstraGudde. (2022). Grenzeloos leren: Evaluatierapport Virtual Reality Plaats Delict Training.
van der Bijl-Brouwer, M. (2022). Service designing for human relationships to positively enable social
systemic change. International Journal of Design, 16(1), 23.
van Rijn, H., Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P. J., & Özakar, A. D. (2011). Achieving empathy with users:
the effects of different sources of information. CoDesign, 7(2), 65-77.
Vink, J., Wetter-Edman, K., & Koskela-Huotari, K. (2021). Designerly approaches for catalyzing change
in social systems: A social structures approach. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and
Innovation, 7(2), 242-261.
Yee, J., Jefferies, E., & Michlewski, K. (2017). Transformations: 7 roles to drive change by design. BIS
Publishers.
About the Authors:
Ir. Deanne Spek is a junior researcher working on social design
(research) projects in the healthcare domain. Her work combines
codesign and psychology in multidisciplinary healthcare settings,
focussing on self-reflection, resilience and collaborative change.
Dr. ir. Froukje Sleeswijk Visser is associate professor social design and
independent design researcher. Her research focusses on integration
of the human perspective in designing for societal challenges.
Dr. Ir. Wina Smeenk is Professor in Societal Impact Design, chair of the
Expertisenetwork Systemic Codesign and self-employed empathic
codesigner. Wina focusses on research about empathic formation in
codesign processes in practice as well as education.