Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:01:35.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local versus Global Perceptual Scope, Empathic Concern, and Helping Preferences in Multiple-Victim Situations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2017

Luis Oceja ,
Eric Stocks ,
Tamara Ambrona ,
Belén López-Pérez  and
Pilar Carrera
Luis Oceja*
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
Eric Stocks
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Tyler (USA)
Tamara Ambrona
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
Belén López-Pérez
Affiliation:
Liverpool Hope University (UK)
Pilar Carrera
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Luis Oceja. Departamento de Psicología Social y Metodología. C/ Pavlov, 6. Ciudad Universitaria Cantoblanco. 28049. Madrid (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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 (ηp2 = .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.

Keywords

empathic concernhelping preferencesone-among-others effectperceptual scope
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 20 , 2017 , E25
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
Förster, J. (2012). The how and why of global and local processing. Psychological Science, 21, 15–19.Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 Google ScholarPubMed
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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-among-others motivates to help the others. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.856787 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
Slovic, P. (2007). ”If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 79–95.Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
Stürmer, S., & Snyder, M. (2010). The psychology of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping. (pp. 223–244). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar