Local versus global perceptual scope, empathic concern, and helping preferences in multiple-victim situations

  1. Luis Oceja 1
  2. Eric Stocks 2
  3. Tamara Ambrona 1
  4. Belén López-Pérez 3
  5. Pilar Carrera 1
  1. 1 Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01cby8j38

  2. 2 University of Texas at Tyler
    info

    University of Texas at Tyler

    Tyler, Estados Unidos

    ROR https://ror.org/01azfw069

  3. 3 Liverpool Hope University
    info

    Liverpool Hope University

    Liverpool, Reino Unido

    ROR https://ror.org/03ctjbj91

Mostrar afiliaciones +
Revista:
The Spanish Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 1138-7416

Año de publicación: 2017

Volumen: 20

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1017/SJP.2017.25 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Resumen

Previous research on the one-among-others effect has shown that inducing empathic concern towards a victim presented alongside with a small number of other victims enhances (a) the perception of this set of victims as separate and different individuals (instead of as a group), and (b) the preference to help them individually (rather than collectively). We propose that inducing a local (vs. global) perceptual scope increases (vs. lessens) these two outcomes. In this work, participants first reported their perception of an ad that showed a victim depicted as one-among-others and, afterwards, were unexpectedly asked to indicate their preference for giving the victims either “individualized”, “collective”, or “equal” assistance. In Experiment 1 (N = 48), we manipulated the participants’ local (vs. global) perceptual scope and allowed empathy concern to occur naturally. In Experiment 2 (N = 213), we manipulated both the perceptual scope and empathy concern. Overall, results showed that the combined presence of local scope and empathic concern increased the awareness of others (η p 2 = .203 and .047, 95% CI = [0.05, 0.35] and [0.03, 0.13], ps < .03) and the preference for individualized assistance (zs = 2.08 and 2.74, ps < .02). Lastly, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of perceiving a set of victims as individuals (rather than as a group) in need.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ambrona T., Oceja L., López-Pérez B., & Carrera P. (2016). Can empathy be generalized from one person to others? Another positive side of the one-among-others effect. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 57, 547–553. https://doi. org/10.1111/sjop.12316
  • Bartels D. M., & Burnett R. C. (2011). A group construal account of drop-in-the-bucket thinking in policy preference and moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.08.003
  • Batson C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a socialpsychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Batson C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Batson C. D., Ahmad N., Yin J., Bedell S. J., Johnson J. W., Templin C. M., & Whiteside A. (1999). Two threats to the common good: Self-interested egoism and empathy-induced altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025001001
  • Batson C. D., Chang J., Orr R., & Rowland J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group? Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 1656–1666. https:// doi.org/10.1177/014616702237647
  • Batson C. D., Fultz J., & Schoenrade P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality, 55, 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00426.x
  • Batson C. D., Klein T. R., Highberger L., & Shaw L. L. (1995). Immorality from empathy induced altruism: When compassion and justice conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1042–1054. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1042
  • Cameron C. D., & Payne B. K. (2011). Escaping affect: How motivated emotion regulation creates insensitivity to mass suffering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021643
  • Campbell D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of person as social entities. Behavioural Science, 3, 14–25. https://doi. org/10.1002/bs.3830030103
  • Davis M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
  • Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi. org/10.3758/BF03193146
  • Förster J. (2012). The how and why of global and local processing. Psychological Science, 21, 15–19.
  • Förster J., Liberman N., & Kuschel S. (2008). The effect of global versus local processing styles on assimilation versus contrast in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 579–599. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.579
  • Hamilton D. L., & Sherman S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336–355. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.336
  • Hsee C. K., & Rottenstreich Y. (2004). Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 23–30. https://doi. org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.23
  • Huntsinger J. R., Isbell L. M., & Clore G. L. (2014). The affective control of thought: Malleable, not fixed. Psychological Review, 121, 600–618. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0037669
  • Kogut T., & Ritov I. (2005). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 157–167. https://doi. org/10.1002/bdm.492
  • Liberman N., & Forster J. (2009). Distancing from experienced self: How global-versus-local perception affects estimation of psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 203–216. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0015671
  • Lickel B., Hamilton D. L., Wieczorkowska G., Lewis A. C., Sherman S. J., & Uhles A. N. (2010). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.78.2.223
  • Lishner D. A., Batson C. D., & Huss E. A. (2011). Tenderness and sympathy: Distinct other-oriented emotions elicited by different forms of need. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 614–625. https://doi. org/10.1177/0146167211403157
  • Navon D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(77)90012-3
  • Navon D. (1981). Do attention and decision follow perception? Comment on Miller. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1175–1182. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.7.6.1175
  • Nisbett R. E. (2003). The geography of thought. New York, NY: Free Press.
  • Oceja L. (2008). Overcoming empathy-induced partiality: Two rules of thumb. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 176–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530802209236
  • Oceja L., Ambrona T., López-Pérez B., Salgado S., & Villegas M. (2010). When the victim is one among others: Empathy, awareness of others and motivational ambivalence. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-010-9161-1
  • Oceja L. V., Heerdink M. W., Stocks E. L., Ambrona T., López-Pérez B., & Salgado S. (2014). Empathy, awareness of others, and action: How feeling empathy for one-amongothers motivates to help the others. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533. 2013.856787
  • Oceja L., & Jiménez I. (2007). Beyond egoism and group identity: Empathy for the other and awareness of others in a social dilemma. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600006636
  • Oceja L., Stocks E., & Lishner D. (2010). Congruence between the target in need and the recipient of aid: The one-among-others effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2814–2828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1559-1816.2010.00682.x
  • Oswald P. A. (1996). The effects of cognitive and affective perspective taking on empathic concern and altruistic helping. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 613–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1996.9714045
  • Rutchick A. M., Hamilton D. L., & Sack J. D. (2008). Antecedents of entitativity in categorically and dynamically construed groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 905–921. https://doi. org/10.1002/ejsp.555
  • Sibicky M. E., Schroeder D. A., & Dovidio J. F. (1995). Empathy and helping: Considering the consequences of intervention. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 435–453. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1604_3
  • Slovic P. (2007). ”If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 79–95.
  • Smith R. W., Faro D., & Burson K. A. (2013). More for the many: The influence of entitativity on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 961–976. https://doi. org/10.1086/666470
  • Simmons J. P., Nelson L. D., & Simonsohn U. (2011). False-Positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
  • Stocks E. L., López-Pérez B., & Oceja L. V. (2016). Can’t get you out of my mind: Empathy, distress, and recurring thoughts about a person in need. Motivation and Emotion, 40, 1–12. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11031-016-9587-1
  • Stürmer S., & Snyder M. (2010). The psychology of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping. (pp. 223–244). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Varnum M. E., Grossmann I., Kitayama S., & Nisbett R. E. (2010). The origin of cultural differences in cognition: Evidence for the social orientation hypothesis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 9–13. https://doi. org/10.1177/0963721409359301
  • Västfjäll D., Slovic P., & Mayorga M. (2015). Pseudoinefficacy: Negative feelings from children who cannot be helped reduce warm glow for children who can be helped. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 616. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2015.00616
  • Woltin K. A., Corneille O., Yzerbyt V. Y., & Förster J. (2011). Narrowing down to open up for other people’s concerns: Empathic concern can be enhanced by inducing detailed processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 418–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.11.006
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet