In 2001, I suffered a devastating miscarriage. That loss, combined with the recent suicide of a patient, sent me into a spiral. I happened to be on the faculty of NYU Hospital at the time, and after a particularly difficult day, I broke down and cried in the hospital hallway. There I stood in my long white hospital coat, tears trickling down my face. Several passersby—complete strangers—stopped, asked if I was okay and offered comforting words. I was profoundly grateful for the positive reactions, which helped ease my pain a bit. And—perhaps just as importantly—relieved that a doctor was “allowed” to show her human side.
There exists a strong prejudice that people who cry in front of others are weak and not competent. In cartoons that were distributed in the occupied territories during the Second World War, Adolf Hitler was represented as a crybaby. In that way, the Allies tried to boost morale in the occupied territories. Strong prejudice still exists towards overt male displays of emotion, and the impact of this bias on young boys can be devastating.
Nevertheless, Dr. Ad Vingerhoets, emeritus Professor of Psychology at Tilburg University in the Netherlands and one of the world’s foremost experts on crying, says that positive reactions to criers are plentiful. ”Research shows that criers are usually seen as warm and reliable…the people we want as friends and neighbors. Crying can bind us to others.”
Many times, we feel worse immediately after a solitary tearful episode. The act of crying often doesn’t provide the relief from pent-up distress (or “catharsis”) that has been widely publicized to occur. Researcher Lauren Bylsma, Professor of Psychology at the University of South Florida, and colleagues conducted a daily diary study of crying episodes in 97 female subjects. The researchers concluded that tearful occurrences were generally immediately followed by either no change or worsened mood, while only 30 percent of the episodes were associated with mood improvement.
But research on the impact of crying in front of others tells a different story. The most extensive study on how we judge tears—an international survey in 41 countries—was conducted by German researcher Janis Zickfeld and a group of international collaborators. The participants were shown pictures of people with tears and the same images without tears. Three conditions were created. In the first condition, the depicted person had just been told by their romantic partner that the partner wanted to end the relationship. In the second condition, the message read that the depicted person had received a marriage proposal from the partner. In the neutral condition, the depicted person was reportedly portrayed as slicing onions. Remarkably, in all three conditions, the visible tears resulted in research participants being more willing to provide emotional support to the represented individual.
According to Vingerhoets, “tears act as social glue through the mechanism of empathy. This is what stimulates us to provide support or comfort to others.” Empathy is induced by seeing or imagining another’s inner state, and being aware that one’s own emotional condition has been induced by that of the other person. The extent of positive reactions can vary according the circumstances and personality of the onlooker, of course.
It is often said that tears and leadership don’t go well together, because leaders run an immense risk of losing their authority. A tearful doctor wearing a white coat, huddled against the wall of a hospital hallway, is a perfect example of this potential bias. But that’s only half the story. Tears can have a positive impact on others—and, by extension, on the crier—depending on both the circumstances and how the tears are delivered.
Just how big an impact a tear can have is shown by the sophisticated analysis of President Obama’s tears shed during a speech about the events at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in which 26 people, including 20 schoolchildren, were killed. The tears became visible when he addressed his powerlessness regarding gun laws. Commentators described these tears as the most emotion an American president has ever shown on camera. Obama showed the “power of powerlessness,” admitting that he couldn’t get gun control legislation passed even after Sandy Hook because the issue had become so polarized. In this case, the message of the tears was deemed empathetic and appropriate, and echoed many peoples’ feelings of powerlessness in the face of such a tragedy. Obama’s tears were part of what united the country in its reaction to the events at Sandy Hook.
For whom and under which conditions will crying stimulate empathy in others and evoke support? Very subtle factors and nuances play a role. Sad facial expression, moist eyes and lack of vocalization all contribute towards a sense of appropriateness. Loud sobbing or whining sounds often make it harder for the onlooker to summon empathy.
So how should you react when someone cries in your presence? When a patient cries in therapy, it’s important for the therapist to acknowledge the distress and provide a safe environment for the patient to explore their feelings.
The same general principles apply when a loved one, friend, or stranger cries in our presence. It’s important to validate feelings with phrases like “It’s understandable that you should feel this way” or “I’m here if you want to talk”. Maintaining eye contact or offering a tissue are important non-verbal supportive responses. It’s vital not to ignore or brush off the tears—or to attempt to fix the other’s problem. The issue of physical contact can be a tricky one. Hugging your crying friend in silence can be a powerful gesture, but the same action can also be confusing if hugging is not a normal part of your relationship. Let the other person take the lead when judging the type of physical affection to offer.
Keep in mind that genuine tears connect us to others. How we choose to respond to someone’s crying may bring out the best version of ourselves and bind us to others in a meaningful way.
