10.1177/014616702237647 PERSONALITY AND BULLETIN Batson et al. / , 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

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- 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. 1972). Although possible, this seemed a less troubling threat because prior research had clearly demonstrated Although we considered adding a fictional-interview/ an effect of empathy on attitudes when there was no low-empathy condition as well, we did not, for two rea- intervening helping measure (Batson et al., 1997; sons. First, fiction is not normally approached objec- Dovidio et al., 1999; Finlay & Stephan, 2000). tively. Second, the most stringent and appropriate way to The two experimental conditions described made it test whether the effects of empathy felt for a fictional per- possible for us to test our central prediction: son are comparable to the effects of empathy felt for a real person was by comparison to the same low-empathy Prediction 1: Compared to individuals not induced to feel condition used to test the effects of empathy felt for a empathy, individuals induced to feel empathy for a mem- group member thought to be real. ber of a stigmatized group will allocate more resources to an agency that helps members of the stigmatized group, METHOD even though this agency cannot help the member for whom the empathy is felt. Participants

Our second prediction concerned the role of attitudes Participants were 54 introductory psychology stu- in mediating the effect of empathy on helping the dents at the University of Kansas (36 women, 18 men) group: who received credit toward a course requirement. Using a randomized-block procedure, we assigned 18 partici- Prediction 2: The increased helping by those induced to feel pants (12 women, 6 men) to each of our three experi- empathy for a member of a stigmatized group will be me- mental conditions: low empathy, high empathy, and fic- diated by the effect of empathy on attitudes toward the tional interview/high empathy. Based on both indirect group as a whole. and direct probes during debriefing, we excluded data A possible extension: Can the target of empathy be fictional? from 2 additional students (1 woman, 1 man) who were In all previous research assessing the effect of empathy in real interview conditions but expressed suspicion that on attitudes, and in all previous research assessing the the interview was not real. effect of empathy on helping, research participants have More women than men were included in the sample been led to believe that the individual for whom they are because two of the three experimenters were women and induced to feel empathy is a real person undergoing real we wished to keep gender of participant and experimenter suffering. Is it possible to induce empathy for an individ- the same to minimize cross-gender self-presentation ual who is a member of a stigmatized group when that concerns (Jones & Pittman, 1982). The different num- individual is known to be fictional? And if so, does this ber of men and women did not seem to be a problem empathy have effects on attitudes and action similar to because there were no reliable sex effects (main effects those produced by empathy felt for a real person? These or interactions) on any of the reported measures. More- questions are important because many books, movies, over, sex effects had not been found in previous research and plays seek to improve attitudes toward a stigmatized assessing the effect of empathy on attitudes toward stig- group—a racial or cultural minority or people with some matized groups (Batson et al., 1997). affliction, disability, or disease—by inducing empathy Procedure for one or more fictional characters, depicted as mem- bers of the stigmatized group. Each participant was scheduled for an individual To explore this possibility, we added another condi- experimental session. On arrival, he or she was escorted tion to our experimental design. In this condition, par- into a research cubicle and left alone to read a written ticipants were instructed to imagine the feelings of the introduction. The introduction presented the study as a person being interviewed, but only after they had been project being conducted by Dr. James Nichols, Depart- told that the interview was a fictional creation (fictional- ment of Psychology, in conjunction with the University’s interview/high-empathy condition). Including this con- Student Action Committee, or SAC (presented as a real dition in the design allowed us to test a third prediction. committee but actually fictitious):

Prediction 3: Compared to individuals not induced to feel This research is part of an effort to get student input empathy, individuals induced to feel empathy for a fic- regarding allocation of SAC funds to different commu- tional character who is a member of a stigmatized group nity outreach projects. As you may know, in 1998 the Stu-

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on February 25, 2015 Batson et al. / EMPATHY, ATTITUDES, AND ACTION 1659

dent Senate initiated a community outreach program as Then the sheet explained that an additional program a means of giving tangible expression to students’ was seeking funding for 2001: desires to be responsible contributors to the local com- munity. Each year the SAC spends an annual budget of The SAC has also received an additional proposal from a $20,000 to support community service projects in Law- new program seeking outreach funding. The proposal is rence and the surrounding area. from the Douglas County Addiction Counseling Service, Because these funds come from student fees, the SAC a nonprofit counseling program designed to help indi- has made it a point to get student input in how the funds viduals in Lawrence and surrounding communities who are spent. There is one group of students whose input has have become addicted to hard drugs (heroin, cocaine, been underrepresented in past decisions—freshmen and etc.). The Addiction Counseling Service is unique in sophomores. Because of the large percentage of fresh- that it goes out into the community to provide support man and sophomore students in Psychology 104 [Gen- and encouragement to addicts as they try to regain con- eral Psychology], the SAC asked Dr. Nichols—an expert trol of their lives. on decision-making and resource allocation—to poll a Your task as a participant in this research is to decide sample of Psychology 104 students to get their input on whether you would like the SAC to allocate some of the how the community outreach funds should be spent in $20,000 community outreach budget for 2001 to the the coming budget year. You are one of these students. Douglas County Addiction Counseling Service and, if so, Your input, along with the input of other introductory how much. Because the community outreach budget is psychology students, will be an important factor in deter- fixed, any money allocated to this new project must mining how the SAC budget for 2001 is spent. [The come from one or more of the four projects listed above experiment was run in the fall semester 2000.] We know that are currently being funded. that asking for your input on such an important decision places a serious burden of responsibility on you, but the Thus, allocating funds to the Addiction Counseling Ser- SAC is committed to basing their budget decisions on vice to help addicts involved cost in the form of reduced student input. It is our hope that you will be willing to accept this responsibility. funds for other worthwhile community-service projects. Manipulation of reality of an interview with a drug addict. The last paragraph on the information sheet differed After participants read the introduction and signed a depending on the experimental condition to which the consent statement, the experimenter returned and pro- participant had been randomly assigned. For those in vided them with a sheet describing their role in deter- the low-empathy and high-empathy conditions, the para- mining the SAC community outreach allocations for the graph read as follows: 2001 budget year. Again, participants were left alone to read this information sheet, which first described the To give you some basis for assessing the need for an addiction counseling service to serve Lawrence and sur- projects that were being funded during budget year rounding communities, the SAC asked Kelly Carter, a 2000. senior in Journalism, to gather background informa- tion. Based on interviews with local school officials, min- isters, and police, Ms. Carter found that addiction to For the current budget year, 2000, the SAC has divided hard drugs does indeed exist in Douglas County; indeed, its annual community outreach budget of $20,000 it is on the rise. The information she gathered led her to among four projects. The projects currently receiving conduct an interview with a 22-year-old man named funding are: Jared Briggs, currently serving a 7-year sentence in 1. Building Blocks (a program to assist mentally re- Leavenworth Penitentiary for possession and sale of her- tarded children with learning new skills) oin. You will be listening to an audiotape of this interview 2. Save the Environment (an advocacy and action to provide you with some information about what it is group that works at the local level to protect and like to live as a heroin addict. Then you will be asked to restore environmental resources) offer your input on whether the SAC should allocate 3. Center for Single Parent Education (a program some of the outreach budget to support the Douglas that provides educational opportunities for single County Addiction Counseling Service. parents) 4. Students for Animal Rights (a group comprised of high school and university students who work Participants in the fictional-interview/high-empathy with and through the local Humane Society to condition read the same paragraph, except for the fol- protect the rights and prevent the mistreatment lowing changes: of animals) Each of these four programs is anxious to continue . . . The information she gathered led her to create the funding from the SAC at the same level in budget year script for an imagined interview with a 22-year-old man 2001. named Jared Briggs, currently serving a 7-year sentence

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on February 25, 2015 1660 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

in Leavenworth Penitentiary for possession and sale of I think I need to get out of the area. Think maybe I’ll heroin. The interview is purely fictional but it is based on head down to Texas and see if I can’t make a better start Ms. Carter’s findings about the lives of heroin addicts. on my life. Try to find a second chance; try to make some- You will listen to an audiotape of this fictional inter- thing of myself and my life. (pause) Of course I know it’s view . . . going to be tough. Now I’ve got two labels—junkie and ex-con. It’s like they expect you to just mess up again and be right back where they think you belong. I really want The experimenter was not aware whether a given partici- to make it, to have a life. Staying clean will be tough, but pant read that the interview was real or was fictional until I’ve got to do it. all measures were taken. Measuring empathic feelings. After listening to the inter- Manipulation of empathy. When participants finished view, participants completed an Interview Response reading the information sheet, the experimenter Questionnaire. This questionnaire listed 20 adjectives returned, placed an audio cassette containing the inter- describing different emotional states and was used to view with Jared Briggs in a tape player, gave the partici- assess empathic feelings for Jared. For each adjective, pant written listening instructions, and left the partici- participants were asked to report how much they had pant alone to read the instructions and then listen to the experienced that while listening to the inter- interview. The instructions explained that Dr. Nichols view (1 = not at all,7=extremely). The list included 6 adjec- had found that listening perspective was important in tives used in much previous research to assess empathy: determining reactions to interviews. Therefore, all par- sympathetic, compassionate, softhearted, warm, tender, and ticipants in this research were asked to adopt the follow- moved (see Batson, 1991, for a review), providing a check ing perspective while listening to the interview with on the effectiveness of the empathy manipulation. Jared Briggs. For participants in the low-empathy condi- tion, the perspective instructions read as follows: “While Allocating funds to the Douglas County Addiction Coun- you are listening to this interview, try to take an objective seling Service to help drug addicts. Next, participants com- perspective toward what is described. Try not to get caught up pleted a SAC Community Outreach Budget Recommen- in how Jared feels; just remain objective and detached.” dation form. On this form, participants were asked for For participants in the two high-empathy conditions, the their “input as to whether you would like the SAC to allo- instructions read as follows: “While you are listening to cate some of the $20,000 annual community outreach this interview, try to imagine how Jared feels about what has budget for 2001 to the Addiction Counseling Service.” happened and how it has affected his life. Try to feel the full The information provided in the interview—that Jared impact of what Jared has been through and how he feels (a) was only in the 2nd year of a 7-year prison sentence in as a result.” The experimenter was unaware of which per- a federal penitentiary in another county and (b) spective instructions a given participant received. planned to leave the area when released—made it clear Stotland’s (1969) classic research on empathy using that he would not benefit from any funds allocated to physiological measures had provided evidence that this program. To emphasize the cost involved in making perspective-taking instructions similar to these manipu- an allocation, participants were reminded on the form late empathic emotional arousal. Coke et al. (1978), that funds allocated to the Addiction Counseling Service using a misattribution of arousal technique, had demon- must come from one or more of the programs funded in strated that the prosocial consequences of empathy- 2000: Building Blocks, Save the Environment, Center for inducing perspective instructions are a result of their Single Parent Education, and Students for Animal effect on physiological arousal, not of experimental Rights. Participants were not able to specify from which demand (Orne, 1962) or cognitive effects. of these programs any funds allocated to the Addiction Jared Briggs, a heroin addict and dealer. All participants Counseling Service would be taken. heard exactly the same interview. Ostensibly, the inter- The form listed nine options for funding of the Addic- view took place inside Leavenworth Penitentiary, with tion Counseling Service: no allocation, $1,000, $2,000, Kelly Carter talking to Jared Briggs, a 22-year-old man and so on up to $8,000, which was described as the “maxi- from Eudora (a small town 10 miles from Lawrence) cur- mum allowable for any single program.” Participants rently in the 2nd year of a 7-year sentence for possession were asked to check the option that they wished to see and sale of heroin (actually fictitious). In the interview, implemented. Although participants were not asked to Jared spoke about how he became addicted to heroin, make a direct monetary contribution, they were led to about how he began to steal and deal to support his believe that their recommendation would affect the way habit, about his arrest, and about his life in prison. that Student Senate community outreach funds—to Finally, he responded to a question about his plans once which their own student fee contributed—would be he got out: spent.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on February 25, 2015 Batson et al. / EMPATHY, ATTITUDES, AND ACTION 1661

Attitudes toward people addicted to hard drugs. Once partic- ts(51) > 5.30, ps < .0005. As already noted, preliminary ipants had completed the budget recommendation form, analyses including sex of participant as a factor revealed they were asked to complete an attitude questionnaire, that there were no reliable sex effects, either main effects ostensibly to help us interpret their responses to the or interactions, on these or any other reported mea- other measures. Modeled on McConahay’s (1986) Mod- sures. Therefore, sex of participant is not included as a ern Racism Scale and the questionnaires developed by factor in the reported analyses. Batson et al. (1997) to measure attitudes toward people Second, to assess the effectiveness of the empathy with AIDS and toward the homeless, this questionnaire manipulation in inducing empathic feelings for Jared, consisted of nine items designed to assess beliefs about, we turned to participants’ self-reported empathy on the concern for, and feelings toward people addicted to emotional response questionnaire. As in previous hard drugs (e.g., “People addicted to hard drugs lack research, responses to the six empathy adjectives (sympa- self-control and inner strength,” where 1 = strongly dis- thetic, softhearted, moved, compassionate, warm, and tender) agree,9=strongly agree, reverse-scored; “In general, what were averaged to form an index of self-reported empathy are your feelings toward people addicted to hard drugs?” (Cronbach’s α = .94). Even though all participants heard where 1 = extremely negative, 9 = extremely positive). exactly the same interview, we assumed that those in the A further check on the empathy manipulation. Participants high-empathy conditions, who were asked to imagine next completed an evaluation form concerning the Jared’s feelings while listening, would experience more interview. In addition to asking how interesting and empathy for him than would participants in the low- informative they thought the interview was, this form empathy condition, who were asked to remain objective. included two items designed to provide a further check Consistent with expectations, mean scores on the on the effectiveness of the empathy manipulation: empathy index were significantly higher in the two “While listening to the interview, to what extent did you high-empathy conditions (Ms = 3.88 and 3.26 for the concentrate on being objective?” and “To what extent real and fictional conditions, respectively) than in the low- did you concentrate on Jared’s feelings?” (1 = not at all,9= empathy condition (M = 2.01), ts(51) > 2.90, ps < .005 very much, for each question). (see Row 1 of Table 1). Comparing the two high-empathy Debriefing. After participants completed all measures, conditions, reported empathy was somewhat lower for the experimenter returned and initiated an interview. participants told that Jared was fictional than for those This interview included a careful probing for suspicion led to believe he was real, but this difference was not sig- and then a full debriefing. Once debriefed, participants nificant, t(51) = 1.48, .10 < p < .15. were thanked for their assistance and excused. We concluded that our perspective-taking manipula- tion of empathy was effective. It increased empathic feel- ings for Jared both when participants were led to believe RESULTS that he was real and when they thought that he was fic- Effectiveness of the tional. Empathic feelings were, however, somewhat empathy manipulation lower among those who thought he was fictional. It is also worth noting that even though the pattern of differ- We checked the effectiveness of the empathy manipu- ences in reported empathy is much the same here as in lation in two ways. First, on the final evaluation form, par- previous studies using perspective-taking instructions to ticipants reported the degree to which, while listening to manipulate empathy, the means are considerably lower the interview, they concentrated on being objective and on Jared’s feelings. Consistent with expectations, mean than in most other studies. Typically, the low-empathy scores for reports of concentration on being objective mean is in the 3 to 4 range on a 1 to 7 scale, and the high- were significantly lower in the two high-empathy condi- empathy mean is in the 5 to 6 range (see Batson, 1991; tions (Ms = 5.72 and 5.22 for the real and fictional condi- Batson et al., 1997, Experiments 1 and 2). Only in Exper- tions, respectively) than in the low-empathy condition iment 3 reported by Batson et al. (1997), in which empa- (M= 7.06), ts(51) > 2.09, ps < .05. (For convenience, all thy was induced for a convicted murderer serving life statistical tests are reported two-tailed, even for direc- without parole, were means as low as the present ones (in tional predictions. Tests for these and other a priori pre- Batson et al., 1997, Experiment 3, low-empathy M = 2.01, dicted differences are based on planned comparisons high-empathy M = 3.18). Clearly, our participants found using a pooled error term.) Mean scores for reports of it somewhat difficult to feel sympathy and compassion concentration on Jared’s feelings were significantly for a convicted heroin addict, thief, and drug dealer. higher in the two high-empathy conditions (Ms = 6.56 Still, those instructed to imagine Jared’s feelings and 6.94 for the real and fictional conditions, respec- reported more empathy than those instructed to remain tively) than in the low-empathy condition (M = 3.33), objective.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on February 25, 2015 1662 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

TABLE 1: Mean Self-Reported Empathy, Helping, and Attitude in Each Experimental Condition

Experimental Condition Measures Low Empathy High Empathy Fictional Interview/High Empathy

Self-reported empathy 2.01 (0.90) 3.88 (1.39) 3.26 (1.41) Helping $2,667 ($1,609) $4,333 ($1,847) $3,722 ($1,447) Attitudes 4.70 (1.21) 6.41 (1.13) 5.65 (0.93)

NOTE: N = 18 (12 women, 6 men) per cell. Standard deviations are in parentheses. Self-reported empathy was measured ona1(not at all)to7(ex- tremely) scale. Helping was measured by the amount of the $20,000 Community Outreach Budget participants recommended be allocated to the Douglas County Addiction Counseling Service. There were nine response options, ranging from no allocation to $1,000, $2,000, and so on, up to $8,000. Attitudes toward people addicted to hard drugs were measured on a 1 (very negative attitude) to 9 (very positive attitude) scale.

Effects of Empathy for Jared on Allocating Addiction Counseling Service was higher in the high- Funds to Help Drug Addicts empathy condition (M = $4,333) than in the low-empathy condition (M = $2,667), t(51) = 3.04, p < .005. (All partici- To assess the effects of evoking empathy for a member pants in the experiment recommended that at least of a stigmatized group on willingness to act in a way that some money be allocated to the Counseling Service.) On benefits the group, we turned to participants’ budget average, participants in the high-empathy condition recommendations. Participants had been informed that allocated more than $1,600 more to the Addiction Coun- the Student Action Committee had an annual budget of seling Service than did participants in the low-empathy $20,000 for community outreach programs and that the condition. four programs that had been funded during the previ- The support for Prediction 3 was less clear. The mean ous year (consuming the entire budget) were each eager allocation to the Addiction Counseling Service was to continue funding at the same level for the coming higher in the fictional-interview/high-empathy condi- year. Participants also had been informed that a new pro- tion (M = $3,722) than in the low-empathy condition, gram was seeking funding. This program, the Douglas with a mean allocation difference of more than $1,000. County Addiction Counseling Service, was designed to Although close, this predicted difference failed to reach help local individuals who were addicted to hard drugs the conventional .05 level of significance (two-tailed), (heroin, cocaine, etc.). But funds could not be allocated t(51) = 1.93, p < .06. The difference between the two to the Addiction Counseling Service without taking high-empathy conditions did not approach significance, funds away from other worthwhile community service t(51) = 1.12, p > .25. The weaker effect on helping in the projects. Furthermore, the Addiction Counseling Ser- fictional-interview/high-empathy condition may have vice could not help Jared Briggs, who was already in been a product of the somewhat weaker effect of the fic- prison in another county, would be there for several tional interview on empathy, noted previously. more years, and once released planned to leave the area. Correlations between participants’ self-reported It could, however, help people like Jared. Participants empathy and their allocations indicated that increased were given a choice of nine possible allocations to the empathic feelings for Jared were associated with Addiction Counseling Service ranging from no allocation increased willingness to allocate funds to help drug up to an allocation of $8,000, the maximum allowable for addicts other than Jared. Across all three conditions, the any single program. correlation between self-reported empathy and alloca- We had predicted that if inducing empathy for a tion was positive, r(52) = .45, p < .001. Within-cell correla- member of a stigmatized group increases the desire to tions, however, again revealed clearer support for Pre- help the group as a whole, then allocations to the Addic- diction 1 than for Prediction 3. The correlations tion Counseling Service should be higher in the high- between self-reported empathy and the allocation in empathy condition than in the low-empathy condition each of the three conditions were as follows: low empa- (Prediction 1). Furthermore, we had predicted that if thy, r(16) = –.13, ns; high empathy, r(16) = .59, p < .01; fic- inducing empathy for a fictional character is the func- tional interview/high empathy, r(16) = .26, p > .25. tional equivalent of inducing empathy for a real person, Effects of Empathy for Jared then allocations to the Addiction Counseling Service on Attitudes Toward People also should be higher in the fictional-interview/high- Addicted to Hard Drugs empathy condition than in the low-empathy condition (Prediction 3). Based on prior theory and research (Batson et al., Results clearly supported Prediction 1. As can be seen 1997; Dovidio et al., 1999; Finlay & Stephan, 2000), we in the second row of Table 1, the mean allocation to the assumed that inducing empathy for Jared, a convicted

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on February 25, 2015 Batson et al. / EMPATHY, ATTITUDES, AND ACTION 1663 heroin addict and dealer, would improve attitudes on attitudes (Prediction 2) but did not provide a direct toward people addicted to hard drugs in general. To find test. support for this assumption would provide yet another To test this prediction, we first looked at the correla- replication of the empathy-attitude effect. Going beyond tion between attitudes and allocations in the two real replication, we predicted that even when Jared was interview conditions. If this correlation were not posi- known to be fictional, inducing empathy for him would tive, then there would be no basis for assuming media- improve attitudes toward people addicted to hard drugs tion. The correlation was strongly positive, r(34) = .70, p < (Prediction 3). To test these predictions, we created a 9- .0005, so we proceeded to test for mediation. point attitude scale (1 = very negative attitude,9=very posi- To test the pattern of mediation specified in Predic- tive attitude) by averaging responses to the nine attitude tion 2, we performed a path analysis on data from the two items (Cronbach’s α = .81). real interview conditions. The path analysis was based on As can be seen in Row 3 of Table 1, scores on the atti- maximum-likelihood structural equation modeling tude measure were higher in the high-empathy condi- using EQS (Bentler, 1980, 1989). As predicted, the tion (M = 6.41) than in the low-empathy condition (M = model that best fit the covariance matrix, including the 4.70), t(51) = 4.69, p < .0005. This difference is consistent empathy manipulation, self-reported empathy (empa- with the results of prior research and provides the thy index scores), attitudes toward people addicted to assumed replication. Scores on the attitude measure also hard drugs, and helping was a model in which the empa- were higher in the fictional-interview/high-empathy thy manipulation affected self-reported empathy for condition (M = 5.65) than in the low-empathy condition, Jared (Path 1), which in turn affected attitudes toward t(51) = 2.60, p < .02. This difference supports the first people addicted to hard drugs (Path 2), which affected willingness to allocate funds to help these people (Path part of Prediction 3, which stated that being induced to 3). This model, depicted in Figure 1, was a clear improve- feel empathy for a known fictional member of a stigma- ment over the null model, difference in χ2(3, N = 36) = tized group will improve attitudes toward the group. 60.69, p < .001, and was not significantly different from a There was, however, also a significant difference saturated model, χ2(3, N = 36) = 4.12, p > .20. The com- between the two high-empathy conditions, t(51) = 2.09, parative fit index (CFI) was .98, well above the recom- p < .05. Among those induced to feel empathy, attitudes mended minimum of .90, and a Lagrange multiplier test were not as positive when participants knew that Jared indicated that no more complex model could signifi- was fictional. cantly improve the fit. Betas for Paths 1, 2, and 3 (.64, .65, The correlation of self-reported empathy for Jared and .70, respectively) were all highly significant, zs > 4.80, with attitudes toward people addicted to drugs was posi- ps < .001. There was no evidence of a direct effect of the tive across the three conditions, r(54) = .60, p < .001, as perspective-taking manipulation of empathy on helping, well as within the high-empathy condition, r(16) = .58, p < independent of mediation by self-reported empathy .02. This correlation was positive but not reliably differ- and, in turn, attitudes, z < 1.0, ns. ent from zero in either the low-empathy condition, r(16) = .27, ns, or the fictional-interview/high-empathy condi- Checking for a tion, r(16) = .44, p < .07. Self-Perception Effect

Empathic Feelings and Attitudes We also tested a second mediational model. Recall as Mediators of the Effect of the Empathy that to avoid consistency pressure on our key dependent Manipulation on Helping measure, helping, we measured attitudes after helping, which raised the possibility of a self-perception effect. In sum, we found the following results across the two Perhaps participants had no well-formed attitude until conditions in which participants heard an interview with they made their budget allocations, after which they Jared and were led to believe that he was a real person: inferred an attitude based on their allocation. As already (a) The perspective-taking manipulation of empathy noted, previous research had found effects of an empa- affected self-reported empathic feelings toward Jared; thy induction on attitudes in the absence of an interven- (b) this manipulation also affected willingness to allo- ing measure of helping. These attitudes were apparently cate funds to help people addicted to hard drugs, even formed without the benefit of self-perception. Still, per- though this help would not benefit Jared; (c) it affected haps in the present experiment, attitudes were simply a attitudes toward people addicted to hard drugs; and (d) reflection of helping behavior. self-reported empathic feelings were associated with To test this possibility, we conducted a second path more positive attitudes and with more helping. These analysis using EQS in which the model tested included results were consistent with our prediction that the effect all the variables in Figure 1, but the order of the last two of empathy on helping would be mediated by the effect variables, helping and attitudes, was reversed. That is,

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on February 25, 2015 1664 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

.36

Empathy .64 .65 .70 Self-Reported Attitude Toward Helping the Manipulation Empathy the Group Group Empathy .64 .74 Caring for .52 .70 Self-Reported Attitude Toward Helping the Manipulation Individual’s Empathy the Group Group Welfare

Figure 1 Best fitting path model (including beta weights) of relation of empathy manipulation, self-reported empathy, attitude, Figure 2 Best fitting path model (including beta weights) of relation and helping. of empathy manipulation, self-reported empathy, valuing target’s welfare, attitude, and helping. the model specified that the empathy manipulation indicating a good fit. Betas for Paths 1, 2, 3, and 4 (.64, affected self-reported empathy (Path 1), which in turn .74, .69, and .70, respectively) were all highly significant, affected helping (Path 2), which affected attitudes (Path zs > 4.80, ps < .001. However, the Lagrange multiplier test 3). This alternative model was not a good fit to the data. indicated that adding a direct path from the empathy It was significantly different from a saturated model, manipulation to attitudes toward drug addicts in general χ2 (3) = 13.16, p < .004, and the CFI, .83, indicated a poor could significantly improve the fit. fit. The failure of this model indicated that even though Therefore, we tested a model with this additional path attitudes were measured after helping, they were not included and found that it did improve the fit, χ2(5, N = simply inferred from helping. Rather, as indicated by the 36) = 98.93, p < .001. This model, depicted in Figure 2, path analysis in Figure 1, and as specified by Prediction 2, was even closer to the saturated model, χ2(5, N = 36) = attitudes appeared to mediate the effect of empathy on 2.68, p > .70, with a comparative fit index (CFI) of 1.00. helping. Betas in this model for the four paths described above (.64, .74, .52, and .70) were all still highly significant, zs> Valuing Jared’s Welfare 4.15, ps < .001; the beta for the new path (.36) was smaller In addition to testing the mediation specified in Pre- but also significant, z = 2.85, p < .01. diction 2, we also tested an even more detailed pattern of In sum, there was support for the more detailed four- mediation, the one predicted by our extension of the step pattern of mediation predicted by extending the Batson et al. (1997) three-step empathy-attitude model. Batson et al. (1997) three-step empathy-attitude model This more detailed mediation was that the empathy to action. At the same time, there was indication of an manipulation would cause participants to feel more unpredicted direct effect of the perspective-taking empathy for Jared (Step 1), which would in turn lead manipulation of empathy on attitudes toward drug them to value his welfare more (Step 2), which would addicts that was not mediated by (a) the effect of this lead to more positive attitudes toward addicts in general manipulation on empathic feelings and (b) the effect of (Step 3), which would lead to increased willingness to these feelings on concern for the welfare of the person help addicts (Step 4). for whom empathy was felt. This direct effect was not To permit us to assess this four-step pattern of media- as strong as the mediated effect but it indicates an tion, we had included the following item on the inter- effect of the perspective-taking manipulation on atti- view evaluation form: “How much did you find yourself tudes that lies outside the mediation specified by the caring about his [Jared’s] welfare?” (1 = not at all,9=very empathy-attitude model. much). As expected, participants in the high-empathy condition reported caring about Jared’s welfare more DISCUSSION (M = 5.94) than did participants in the low-empathy con- We began with the optimistic prospect that inducing dition (M = 3.78), t(51) = 3.28, p < .005. empathy for a member of a stigmatized group might be a To test the four-step pattern of mediation, we again potent and valuable technique for creating more posi- used EQS to perform a path analysis on data from the tive responses to the stigmatized of society. We also two real interview conditions. The model that we tested began with doubt about this prospect. Prior research was one in which empathy manipulation affected self- had shown that inducing empathy for a member could reported empathy (Path 1), which in turn affected car- produce more positive attitudes toward a wide range of ing for Jared’s welfare (Path 2), which affected attitudes stigmatized groups. Prior research also had shown that toward drug addicts in general (Path 3), which affected this empathy-attitude effect could be found even when allocation of resources to help addicts (Path 4). This the target of empathy was not a prototypical group model was a clear improvement over the null model, dif- member, was responsible for his or her plight, and ference in χ2(4, N = 36) = 91.64, p < .001, and was not sig- when attitudes were measured unobtrusively several nificantly different from a saturated model, χ2(6, N = 36) weeks after the empathy induction. Our doubt was = 9.97, p > .10. The comparative fit index (CFI) was .96, about whether these more positive attitudes would be

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on February 25, 2015 Batson et al. / EMPATHY, ATTITUDES, AND ACTION 1665 reflected in more positive action to benefit the stigma- contributed to the present strength. First, both the tized group. As is well known, attitudes do not always lead important consequences of their allocation decision and to attitude-consistent behavior (Eagly & Chaiken, 1998). the chance to listen to the interview may have caused If they do not in the case of attitudes affected by empa- participants to attend with some care to their beliefs and thy, then there is little reason for optimism. feelings concerning drug addicts, such as Jared. In this way, participants were provided both (a) motive and (b) Empathy Affects Action opportunity to reflect on and employ their attitudes, the as Well as Attitudes two components that Fazio (1990) specified in his Results of the present experiment helped allay our MODE model as determinants of attitude-behavior con- doubt. All participants heard exactly the same interview sistency. Second, we suspect that the empathic feelings with Jared Briggs, a convicted user and seller of heroin. induced had their greatest impact on the affective (feel- Among participants told the interview was real, those ing) component of the attitude rather than on the cogni- induced to feel empathy for him reported more positive tive (belief) component. The affective component may attitudes toward people addicted to hard drugs than did have been especially important in motivating the bud- those not induced to feel empathy. This difference repli- get allocation decisions we assessed (Millar & Millar, cated the empathy-attitude effect found previously. 1996). More important, compared to individuals not Although the effect of empathy on both attitudes and induced to feel empathy, those induced to do so recom- behavior was strong and clear in our experiment, there mended allocating more Student Senate funds to an are almost certainly limits to this effect. The individual agency that would help drug addicts, thereby reducing for whom empathy is induced must be one for whom funds available for other worthwhile community service respondents can feel empathy. Although Jared was a her- projects (Prediction 1). Participants were not asked to oin addict and dealer, he expressed some remorse and make a direct monetary contribution to the agency. regret. Thus, he came across as a person who was not Instead, they were given the chance to help addicts totally alien. Had he expressed joy at addicting others to through the kind of behavior for which attitudes are heroin, had he been an unrepentant child molester or often thought relevant—voting that communal funds be rapist, had be been a gleeful arsonist or terrorist, we spent to benefit a specific group. We took special care to would not expect an attempt to induce empathy to be measure helping before attitudes. We also took care to successful. On the other hand, our results, and those of make it clear that Jared would not benefit from resources Batson et al. (1997, Experiment 3), suggest that the allocated to the agency; this was done to rule out the pos- effects of empathy can be surprisingly broad and can sibility that empathy-induced helping was nothing more occur in spite of apparent attempts to resist. Indeed, than another example of the well-known effect of empa- some readers may feel that in our attempts to test thy on motivation to help the person for whom empathy whether empathy can affect attitudes toward and action is felt (Batson, 1991, 1998; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987). on behalf of clearly stigmatized groups, we have gone too Even with this possibility ruled out, the empathy-helping far. Some may question whether drug addicts, or con- effect was clear and strong. victed murderers, deserve compassion. In addition, path analyses provided evidence that the Feeling Empathy for a increased helping by those induced to feel empathy for Fictional Group Member Jared was mediated by the effect of empathy on attitudes toward people addicted to hard drugs (Prediction 2). A We also wanted to know if the empathy-attitude-action more detailed path analysis provided support for a pre- effect is limited to cases in which the group member for diction based on our extension of the Batson et al. whom empathy is felt is believed to be real. Does the (1997) empathy-attitude model: Valuing the welfare of effect extend to empathy felt for a fictional group mem- the individual for whom empathy is felt mediates the ber, as many novelists, screenwriters, and playwrights effect of empathy on attitudes and action. In this more seem to assume? By adding a condition in which partici- detailed path analysis, however, there was also evidence pants asked to imagine Jared’s feelings knew before lis- of a weaker but statistically significant direct path to atti- tening to the interview that both he and the interview tudes from the perspective-taking manipulation of were fictional, we were able to collect some initial data to empathy. This direct path indicated an effect independ- address this question. ent of the predicted effect mediated by empathy and val- Results were not entirely clear but were encouraging. uing of the individual’s welfare. First, participants asked to imagine Jared’s feelings after Why was the attitude-behavior link so strong and clear being told that he was fictional (fictional-interview/ in our experiment when the link between attitudes and high-empathy condition) reported significantly more behavior is often so tenuous? We suspect that two factors empathy for him than did participants asked to remain

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on February 25, 2015 1666 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN objective, even though the latter group believed he was REFERENCES real (low-empathy condition). At the same time, partici- Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological pants in the fictional-interview/high-empathy condition answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. reported less empathy, but not significantly less, than Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th high-empathy participants told that Jared was real (high- ed., Vol. 2, pp. 282-316). New York: McGraw-Hill. empathy condition). Second, following the interview Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. with Jared, participants in the fictional-interview/high- (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stig- empathy condition reported significantly more positive matized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Per- attitudes toward people addicted to hard drugs than did sonality and Social Psychology, 72, 105-118. Batson, C. D., Turk, C. L., Shaw, L. L., & Klein, T. R. (1995). Information participants in the low-empathy condition (although not function of empathic emotion: Learning that we value the other’s as positive as in the high-empathy condition). Third, par- welfare. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1042-1054. ticipants in the fictional-interview/high-empathy condi- Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New tion recommended allocating more funds to the Addic- York: Academic Press. tion Counseling Service than did participants in the low- Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456. empathy condition. However, this difference was not sig- Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS structural equations program manual. Los nificant at the .05 level; the two-tailed p was .06. Finally, Angeles: BMDP. for participants in the fictional-interview/high-empathy Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: A two-stage model. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- condition, the within-cell correlations of reported empa- chology, 36, 752-766. thy with attitudes and with allocations were both positive, Dovidio, J. F., Allen, J. L., & Schroeder, D. A. (1990). The specificity of but they were not as positive as those in the high-empathy empathy-induced helping: Evidence for altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 249-260. condition, and they did not reliably differ from zero. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Johnson, J. D. (1999, October). New Although these results do not warrant a firm conclusion, directions in prejudice and prejudice reduction: The role of cognitive repre- sentations and affect. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the they do seem encouraging. The belief that inducing Society of Experimental Social Psychology, St. Louis, MO. empathy for a fictional character can be used to improve Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In attitudes and stimulate concern for a stigmatized group D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psy- chology, 4th ed. (Vol. 1, pp. 269-322). New York: McGraw-Hill. may well be valid. Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. (1987). Empathy and prosocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91-119. Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide IMPLICATIONS behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, Results of our experiment suggest that the more posi- pp. 75-109). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. tive attitudes toward a stigmatized group evoked by Finlay, K. A., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Reducing prejudice: The empathy felt for a member of the group do carry over effects of empathy on intergroup attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1720-1737. into action to benefit the group. Of importance, our Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T.S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strate- results suggest that this readiness to help the group is not gic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. simply a reflection of the well-known tendency for those Matthews, L. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Schroeder, D. A. (1987, May). Does induced to feel empathy for a person in need to help motivate egoistic or altruistic helping? Paper read at relieve that individual’s need. We found that the more the annual convention of the Midwestern Psychological Associa- tion, Chicago. positive attitudes evoked by empathy led to increased McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Mod- helping of the group in a way that could not benefit the ern Racism Scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, individual for whom empathy was felt. discrimination, and racism (pp. 91-125). New York: Academic Press. Millar, M. G., & Millar, K. U. (1996). The effects of direct and indirect Our results considerably broaden the implications of experience on affective and cognitive responses and the attitude- the empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991). They behavior relation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 561-579. suggest that the care evoked by empathy felt for a mem- Orne, M. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological ber of a stigmatized group can generalize to the group experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and stimulate motivation to benefit the group as a whole. and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776-783. Shelton, M. L., & Rogers, R. W. (1981). Fear-arousing and empathy- Our results also provide important reassurance about arousing appeals to help: The pathos of persuasion. Journal of the practical value of using empathy as a technique for Applied Social Psychology, 11, 366-378. creating more positive responses to the plight of the stig- Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 729-743. matized. Empathy felt for a member of a stigmatized Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory investigations of empathy. In L. group can, it seems, change action as well as attitudes. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, Those induced to feel empathy appear willing to put pp. 271-313). New York: Academic Press. their money where their mouth is. And if they are, then Received October 17, 2001 there may be real reason for optimism. Revision accepted April 10, 2002

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on February 25, 2015