Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Overcoming Empathy-Induced Partiality: Two Rules of Thumb

2008; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 30; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/01973530802209236

1532-4834

Luís Oceja,

Social and Intergroup Psychology

Abstract Empathy for a specific individual may provoke unfair decisions, favoring that specific individual at the expense of others (Batson, Klein et al., Citation1995). Recognizing this insidious side of empathy, Hoffman (Citation2000) proposed two “rules of thumb” to prevent it: (a) draw people's attention to norms of fairness and impartiality, and (b) have people consider how others may be affected by one's action. Two studies tested the efficacy of these two rules of thumb. Overall, participants who were induced to feel empathy were significantly more likely to benefit the child for whom they felt empathy at the expense of other children with greater needs. Regarding Hoffman's rules of thumb, previously having participants think about others in need did not inhibit empathy-induced partiality. However, drawing participants' attention to norms of fairness did produce such inhibition. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by grants EX2001-51406136 (MEC) and SEJ2005–06307/PSIC (MEC). We thank Daniel Batson, Pilar Carrera, and anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts. We also thank Alicia Perez and María Guibert for providing an initial version of the text of the ad used in the experiments; Susana Sariego and David Weston for their help in the preparation of the English version; and Samuel Ballesteros, Silvia Campo, Belén Montes, and Cristina de la Torre for their assistance in collecting the data. Notes 1These instructions were designed to lead participants to think that they would be the only one who read this specific ad designed by this specific organization. They thought that other participants would read other ads related to different topics (e.g., sports). The success of these instructions was checked and confirmed in debriefing each of the two studies. 2Among the high-empathy participants the scores were equally high (Ms = 5.73 and 5.65 for high- and low-salience, respectively), t(28) = .26, p > .50, whereas among the low-empathy participants the scores were higher in the low-salience than in the high-salience condition (Ms = 4.81 and 3.81, respectively), t(28) = 2.49, p < .02. To explore the basis of this interaction effect we performed a 2 × 2 multivariate analysis of variance over the eight terms that formed the empathy index. The analysis revealed a significant global effect for the empathy manipulation, F(1, 56) = 3.95, p < .002, but no significant global effects for either the salience manipulation or the interaction, Fs(1, 56) < 1.10, ps > .37. The separate 2 × 2 ANOVAs showed that the interaction was due to the reports on only two of the eight terms that formed the index (i.e., tender and “I feel sympathy for him”). Note. N per cell = 15. 3In the two studies, gender did not produce either a reliable main effect or interactions when it was included in the loglinear analyses (χ2 < 1.50, ps > .10). Note. N per cell = 23.