Crying During In-Depth Interviews:

Written by Rebecca Hitchmough, Consultant, Fiftyfive5, part of Accenture Song

As a qualitative social researcher with over a decade of experience, I’ve always prioritized understanding vulnerable and priority audiences, often through the lens of sensitive topics. Whether exploring the societal factors behind radicalisation or examining the impact of sexual harassment and debt on mental health, I’m drawn to deep, empathetic research. Throughout my career, the well-being of participants has remained paramount. However, the longstanding protocol of stopping an interview when a participant becomes visibly upset has always felt somewhat incomplete—at odds with the complex nuances of human emotion.

The Rigid Protocol: When Tears Signal the End

Historically, we’ve been taught to halt interviews at the first sign of emotional distress, often offering resources or charity contacts as a quick fix. While this approach is rooted in good intentions, it overlooks the complex nature of human emotion. I believe there’s a real need to re-evaluate this practice, allowing participants to express their feelings fully rather than shutting down the conversation.

Tears Aren’t Just Distress: Understanding the Spectrum of Emotions

I don’t see myself as particularly sensitive or emotional, but I cry weekly—is that a lot? I don’t know, but I can’t remember the last time a week went by without some mascara smudging into panda eyes, ugly snot crying into the cuff of my jumper, or desperately trying to catch a few stray tears before they make a scene on public transport because of a moving section in a book podcast. My tears come for all sorts of reasons: laughing too hard, deep and painful grief, feeling overwhelmed with joy, being in awe of nature’s beauty, or simply stubbing my effing toe on the top step of my stairs for the third time this week! Sometimes, my tears even betray me, like when I’m angry and I’m struggling to find the right words. Nothing is more infuriating than having these tears being misconstrued for being ‘upset’.

The Important Distinction: Crying vs. Distress

It’s crucial to differentiate between crying as a natural emotional response and genuine distress that requires intervention. Crying can signify emotional processing, catharsis, or meaningful engagement with the interview topic. In contrast, distress implies a level of discomfort that may necessitate halting the interview. This distinction isn’t solely down to research experience—it’s a human thing. It comes down to picking up on a range of subtle and obvious cues. This can be more challenging in online interviews [a topic for another article], but by understanding this distinction, researchers can better navigate emotional expressions, supporting participants without prematurely ending potentially valuable conversations.

The Gender Divide: Why Women’s Tears Matter in Research

Big revelation here—research indicates that women, on average, cry more than men. Studies suggest that women cry 4-5 times more frequently than men each year, influenced by various social and biological factors. This disparity underscores a critical point: if research protocols dictate stopping interviews when a participant cries, we risk systematically excluding women’s unique needs and experiences from our findings. By failing to accommodate emotional expressions more common among women, we risk invalidating their perspectives and missing valuable insights into their lived experiences.

The Legacy of Hysteria: Echoes of Historical Bias

Historically, the term “hysteria” was used to pathologise women’s emotional responses, labelling them as irrational or overly emotional. This outdated diagnosis reinforced harmful stereotypes, leading to invasive treatments that disregarded women’s emotional complexity. While we’ve moved beyond such explicit biases, a subtle undercurrent remains in our research practices. The automatic response to stop an interview when a participant cries might unintentionally mirror the archaic notion that emotional displays signal a lack of control or inability to participate meaningfully.

Embracing the Emotional Journey: Participant Autonomy in Focus

In my experience, many participants see crying during interviews as a natural, cathartic part of the process. Often, they express a desire to continue sharing despite their tears, indicating that the emotional release is helpful. For instance, during a recent project on women’s health, I interviewed a woman who had struggled for years to receive a diagnosis for her agonizing endometriosis. Dismissed by doctors who trivialized her condition as “just painful periods,” she felt disempowered and struggled to advocate for herself. During our session, she cried frequently but expressed thanks for the opportunity to be heard at the end of our session. This allowed us to explore her experiences in depth, deviating from the discussion guide to better address her needs. This example highlights how rigid adherence to protocol can undermine a participant’s autonomy and willingness to engage.

Rethinking the Protocol: A Compassionate Approach to Emotional Expression

Ethical research standards—including informed consent, respect for participant dignity, and ensuring no undue harm—remain crucial. However, it’s equally important to reconsider how we handle emotional expressions. Instead of stopping the interview abruptly, a simple check-in to see whether the participant is comfortable continuing seems a far more empowering and respectful approach. This adjustment respects their emotional journey and acknowledges their agency in the research process.

Redefining Ethical Research Practices

As researchers, let’s evolve our practices to be more inclusive of emotional expressions, particularly when they offer deep insights into participants’ experiences. By embracing tears and emotional responses as a natural part of the interview process, we ensure that our research captures the full spectrum of human experience. This approach aligns with the true spirit of ethical research—understanding and respecting the lived experiences of all participants, messy emotions included.

But it’s not just about the participants. We also need to look after the research team. Hearing people’s stories and witnessing their emotions can take its toll. That’s why it’s crucial to provide a safe space for debriefing, where we can process what we’ve heard and reflect on how it’s impacted us personally. By taking care of ourselves and each other, we ensure that our research practice remains sustainable, compassionate, and ethically sound for everyone involved.

Final Thought 

As we reflect on our practices, let’s advocate for a research approach that values emotional expression as integral to understanding diverse perspectives. By integrating these practices, we can enhance the depth and quality of our research, capturing the essence of participants’ lived experiences—especially those of women, whose experiences may be disproportionately overlooked when we fail to accommodate their emotional expressions.

I appreciate that this article also raises questions: Does any of this change when men cry? Does the gender of the participant versus the researcher impact the dynamics? Is it ever appropriate for the researcher to share tears with their participant? These questions warrant further exploration as we continue to refine and evolve our research methodologies.