Empathy, Attitudes, and Action

10.1177/014616702237647 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Batson et al. / EMPATHY, ATTITUDES, AND ACTION Empathy, Attitudes, and Action: Can Feeling for a Member of a Stigmatized Group Motivate One to Help the Group? C. Daniel Batson Johee Chang Ryan Orr Jennifer Rowland University of Kansas Research reveals that inducing empathy for a member of a stig- This empathy-attitude effect seems remarkably matized group can improve attitudes toward the group as a robust. Empathy has improved attitudes even when the whole. But do these more positive attitudes translate into action individual for whom empathy was induced was not on behalf of the group? Results of an experiment suggested an prototypical of the group and was not responsible for his affirmative answer to this question. Undergraduates first lis- or her plight (Batson et al., 1997). Extremely negative tened to an interview with a convicted heroin addict and dealer; attitudes have been affected despite apparent attempts they were then given a chance to recommend allocation of Stu- to resist the effect. For example, attitudes toward con- dent Senate funds to an agency to help drug addicts. (The victed murderers serving life without parole were not sig- agency would not help the addict whose interview they heard.) nificantly improved immediately after the empathy Participants induced to feel empathy for the addict allocated induction but were significantly improved several weeks more funds to the agency. Replicating past results, these partici- later when assessed through an unrelated telephone sur- pants also reported more positive attitudes toward people vey (Batson et al., 1997, Experiment 3). The ability of addicted to hard drugs. In addition, an experimental condition empathy to affect attitudes across a wide range of stig- in which participants were induced to feel empathy for a fic- matized groups, the lack of restriction due to tional addict marginally increased action on behalf of, and more subcategorization, the relative insensitivity to informa- positive attitudes toward, drug addicts. tion about responsibility, and the endurance over time all suggest that inducing empathy may be a potent and valuable technique for creating more positive responses Inducing empathy for a member of a stigmatized group to the stigmatized of society. can improve attitudes toward the group as a whole. In From Attitudes to Action this assertion, empathy refers to an other-oriented emo- tional response congruent with the perceived welfare of However, there is a problem with this optimistic sug- another (see Batson, 1991). If the other is oppressed or gestion. Attitudes do not always translate into action in need, empathic feelings include sympathy, compas- (Eagly & Chaiken, 1998; Fazio, 1990). With the excep- sion, tenderness, and the like. These feelings can be tion of a study by Shelton and Rogers (1981), which stimulated by taking the perspective of a person in need, focused on feelings for and helping of whales, all imagining how that person is affected by his or her plight research on the use of empathy to enhance response to (Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978; Stotland, 1969). Empa- thy induced in this way has been used to improve atti- Authors’ Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to C. Daniel Batson, Department of Psychology, University of tudes toward people with AIDS, toward the homeless, Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045; e-mail: [email protected]. and toward racial and ethnic minorities (Batson et al., PSPB, Vol. 28 No. 12, December 2002 1656-1666 1997; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Johnson, 1999; Finlay & DOI: 10.1177/014616702237647 Stephan, 2000; Stephan & Finlay, 1999). © 2002 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 1656 Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on February 25, 2015 Batson et al. / EMPATHY, ATTITUDES, AND ACTION 1657 the plight a stigmatized group has measured only atti- indicates empathy can improve attitudes toward the tudes. It is easy to adjust one’s response on self-report group as a whole. If these attitudes produce attitude- attitude scales; to do so involves no real cost to oneself or consistent behavior, which is by no means a given (Eagly to anyone else. If inducing empathy for a member of a & Chaiken, 1998; Fazio, 1990), then they should lead to stigmatized group leads to more positive attitudes but increased helping of the group as a whole, not only to not to action to improve the welfare of the group, then helping the individual for whom empathy is felt. Second, there is little reason for optimism. there is research by Matthews, Dovidio, and Schroeder There is considerable evidence that feeling increased (1987) that preceded—and helped prompt—the empathy for a person in need increases the readiness to Dovidio et al. (1990) study. Matthews et al. found that help that person (see Batson, 1991; Eisenberg & Miller, empathy induced for one person led to increased help- 1987, for reviews). The question we are raising goes ing of a second person who had a similar need. The beyond this evidence to ask whether empathy felt for a Matthews et al. research suggests that as long as other member of a stigmatized group leads to increased readi- members of a stigmatized group have needs similar to ness not only to help that specific individual but also to those of the member for whom empathy is induced, the help the group, independent of benefit to the specific effect of empathy on motivation to help should general- individual. ize to response to the needs of the group as a whole. This The three-step model for the effect of empathy on qualifier was made explicit in the third step of the Batson attitudes proposed by Batson et al. (1997) suggests an et al. (1997) three-step model, where they specified that affirmative answer to this question. Their empathy- membership in the stigmatized group must be a salient attitude model claims that (a) adopting the perspective component of the plight of the person for whom empa- of a needy individual who is a member of a stigmatized thy is induced. group (i.e., imagining how the individual is affected by The Present Research his or her situation) leads to increased empathic feelings for this individual; (b) these empathic feelings lead to a To test the idea that inducing empathy for a member perception of increased valuing of this individual’s wel- of a stigmatized group not only improves attitudes fare (Batson, Turk, Shaw, & Klein, 1995); and (c) assum- toward but also increases helping of the group, we con- ing that this individual’s group membership is a salient ducted an experiment modeled on Experiment 3 by component of his or her plight, the increased valuing Batson et al. (1997). As had they, we chose a stigmatized generalizes to the group as a whole and is reflected in group for which there were clear negative attitudes to more positive attitudes toward the group. Batson et al. provide a strong test. Their target group was convicted (1997) found support for each step of their model. We murderers; ours was drug addicts. We manipulated wish to add a fourth step to address our present concern: empathy by having research participants in two experi- The increased valuing of the group reflected in more mental conditions listen to an audiotaped interview with positive attitudes should, in turn, provide the basis for a member of the stigmatized group, a 22-year-old man in increased motivation to help the group. Thus, we are prison for use and sale of heroin. Participants in one con- proposing an empathy-attitude-action model. dition were provided with listening instructions that To propose that empathy felt for a member of a stig- asked them to remain objective while listening to the matized group will lead to increased readiness to help interview (low-empathy condition). Participants in a sec- the group may seem contrary to results reported by ond condition were asked to imagine the feelings of the Dovidio, Allen, and Schroeder (1990). In an experiment person being interviewed (high-empathy condition). providing support for the empathy-altruism hypothesis, As had Batson et al. (1997), we measured attitudes Dovidio et al. found that inducing empathy in response toward the group as a whole. Unlike them, however, to one need increased the readiness to help with that before assessing attitudes, we gave participants an oppor- need but not with a different need of the same person. If tunity to help people addicted to hard drugs in a way that empathy-induced helping does not generalize across could not benefit the man interviewed. The helping two needs of the same individual, then what basis have opportunity was in the form of a recommendation for we to expect that inducing empathy for a member of a how limited Student Senate community-outreach funds stigmatized group will lead to increased helping of the should be spent. Funds could be allocated to a program group as a whole in a way that explicitly does not benefit to help drug addicts, but only at the expense of other the individual for whom empathy is felt? We seem to be worthwhile outreach programs. expecting far more generalization than that tested for, We purposely measured helping before attitudes and found not to exist, by Dovidio et al. (1990). because helping was our key dependent measure and we The basis for our expectation lies in two lines of did not want to introduce pressure to help in a manner research. First, there is the research already cited that consistent with a just-expressed attitude. To measure Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on February 25, 2015 1658 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN helping before attitudes could, of course, lead to a will both report more positive attitudes toward the group reverse tendency to express attitudes consistent with and allocate more resources to an agency that helps one’s helping behavior, through self-perception (Bem, members of the group.

Load more