Empathy Map
Empathy Map: A 2Γ2 grid capturing what a person Says (out loud), Thinks (internally, including contradictions with what they say), Does (observable behaviour), and Feels (emotional state). Creates shared team understanding of a user's actual inner world β which is usually quite different from what they say in surveys or interviews.
What Is Empathy Map?β
Empathy Maps were developed by Dave Gray at XPLANE design consultancy and popularised through adoption in Design Thinking and IDEO's human-centred design methodology. The tool acknowledges a fundamental gap: what people say is often different from what they think, which is different from what they feel, which is different from what they do. Traditional user research captures primarily the "Say" quadrant β interviews, surveys, focus groups. Empathy Maps require teams to synthesise all four dimensions to build a complete picture of the user's experience.
The tool is used in two contexts: (1) during user research synthesis β taking data from multiple sources (interviews, observation, diary studies) and organising it into the four quadrants to identify patterns; (2) as a thinking framework β forcing teams to consider dimensions of user experience they haven't yet investigated. Gaps in the map (especially in Think and Feel) reveal research questions that still need answering.
How It Worksβ
The four quadrants:
SAY (top left):
β Verbatim quotes and statements from user research
β What they tell you directly in interviews, surveys
β Often contradicts what they Think or Do
THINK (top right):
β What they're thinking but may not say
β Beliefs, concerns, aspirations they hold internally
β Often inferred from observation and indirect signals
DO (bottom left):
β Observable actions and behaviours
β What they actually do, not what they say they do
β The gap between Say and Do is often the richest insight
FEEL (bottom right):
β Emotional state and motivations
β Fears, frustrations, aspirations
β The emotional underpinning of behaviour
Extended version adds:
β PAINS: what frustrates them, what obstacles they face
β GAINS: what they want to achieve, what success looks like
Three Real-World Examplesβ
Healthcare Patient Experienceβ
A hospital redesigning its patient experience created empathy maps for different patient types. The chronic condition patient's map revealed: Says β "I understand my treatment plan"; Thinks β "I'm afraid the medication will stop working"; Does β skips doses when feeling better; Feels β overwhelmed by the complexity of managing multiple conditions. The gap between Say ("I understand my plan") and Do (skips doses) pointed directly to the root issue: the treatment plan assumed cognitive and emotional resources the patient didn't have available during stressful periods. The redesign focused on simplification and emotional support rather than more information.
B2B Software Onboardingβ
A SaaS company created empathy maps for the "enterprise IT buyer" β the person who signs off on software purchases. Says β "We need enterprise-grade security and compliance." Thinks β "If this goes wrong, my reputation is on the line." Does β reads industry analyst reports before any meeting. Feels β anxious about being held responsible for a failed implementation. The empathy map revealed that the buying process was driven by fear of professional risk, not by product enthusiasm. The sales motion was reoriented around risk reduction and reference customers rather than feature demonstrations.
Remote Worker Product Designβ
A productivity tool company built empathy maps for their target remote worker. Says β "I need to stay in sync with my team." Thinks β "I'm afraid of being seen as less committed than office workers." Does β joins video calls even when audio-only would suffice; over-communicates status updates. Feels β isolated and anxious about visibility. The empathy map revealed that the product need wasn't primarily about task management (what users said) but about social connection and professional visibility (what they felt). The product was redesigned to surface async activity in visible, social ways.
When to Apply Itβ
β Use Empathy Maps when:
- Starting user research synthesis β organising diverse data sources
- Identifying gaps in user understanding that require further research
- Aligning cross-functional teams around a shared user perspective
- Preparing personas or user stories for product development
β Less useful when:
- Very technical user domains where emotional experience is secondary
- You haven't yet done user research (the map needs data to fill)
- You need quantitative validation (empathy maps are qualitative synthesis tools)
| Pairs well with | Why |
|---|---|
| Jobs to Be Done | JTBD identifies the functional job; Empathy Maps surface the emotional context |
| Design Thinking | Empathy Maps are a core synthesis tool in Design Thinking's Empathise phase |
| Storyboarding | Storyboards show the journey; Empathy Maps show the inner experience at each moment |
Common Misuses and Limitationsβ
Filling it with assumptions rather than data. Empathy Maps synthesise existing research β they should be filled with observed data, verbatim quotes, and field observations. Maps filled with what "users probably feel" without research support are fictional personas that may mislead design decisions.
Making one map for "all users." Different user segments have meaningfully different empathy maps. A single map for "the user" obscures important variation. Create separate maps for distinct segments β different roles, different use contexts, different experience levels.
Related Modelsβ
| Model | Relationship |
|---|---|
| Jobs to Be Done | JTBD identifies the job; Empathy Maps surface the emotional context of doing it |
| Design Thinking | Empathy Maps are used in Design Thinking's Empathise phase |
| Storyboarding | Storyboards and Empathy Maps together create a rich user picture |
Frequently Asked Questionsβ
How is an Empathy Map different from a user persona?
A persona is a synthetic character representing a user segment β typically including demographics, goals, and behavioural patterns. An Empathy Map is a structured view of that character's inner world at a specific moment or context. Personas describe who the user is; Empathy Maps describe what they experience. Empathy Maps are often used as an input to persona creation, or as a more detailed view of a specific situation within a persona's life.
Should Empathy Maps be created by design teams alone or collaboratively?
Collaborative creation is significantly more valuable. When cross-functional teams (product, engineering, sales, customer success, marketing) fill in an Empathy Map together, each function brings data the others lack: sales knows what users say in buying conversations; customer success knows what they do when struggling; engineering knows what features they actually use. The synthesis process itself builds shared understanding that's as valuable as the artifact produced.
What do you do when different users contradict each other in their empathy maps?
Different contradictions signal different things: (1) if users in the same segment contradict each other on Do vs. Say, that's the rich insight β investigate why; (2) if users in genuinely different segments have different maps, that's a segmentation finding β create separate maps; (3) if research data contradicts assumption-based map entries, trust the research data and update the map. Contradiction is a diagnostic signal, not a problem to smooth over.
Further Readingβ
- Gray, D. (2017). Updated Empathy Map Canvas β Dave Gray's refined version
- Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design β empathy in Design Thinking
- Gothelf, J. & Seiden, J. (2013). Lean UX β empathy maps in lean product development
Apply with AIβ
π Apply Empathy Map with MindMax β
This page is part of the MindMax Mental Models Knowledge Base.