Psychological Development and Education ›› 2014, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (5): 466-473.

Previous Articles     Next Articles

The Effects of Empathy as Contextual Variable on Violence Attitude

LI Xiao-ping1, YAN Hong-lei1, YUN Xiang2, CHEN Chen1   

  1. 1. School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097;
    2. Department of Public Security, Nanjing Forest Police College, Nanjing 210023
  • Online:2014-09-15 Published:2014-09-15

Abstract: Empathy refers to the degree to which a person subjectively identifies and commiserates with a victim and feels emotional distress. Past research has demonstrated the close relationship between empathy and violent attitudes or behaviors. Past findings also suggested that empathy was negatively associated with violence and aggression, and positively associated with prosocial behaviors. In most studies, however, empathy measures were almost always based on self-report scales in which participants indicated the extent to which they empathized with, felt sympathy for, or felt sorry for a particular person or a group of people. In our research, we experimentally manipulated empathy as a contextual variable. We hypothesized that when people were primed with empathy, their attitudes toward violence would be reduced. Specifically, we expected that unconsciously primed feelings of empathy would decrease people's approval of violence. Two experiments examined the impact of priming empathy on people's implicit and explicit attitudes toward violence. In experiment 1, 131 undergraduates (76 female) were randomly assigned into either the empathy prime condition or the neutral/control condition. Participants were given a word search task that served as the prime. For participants in the empathy prime condition, the word search task contained 13 words related to the concept of empathy (e.g., concern, sensitive, share, care, etc.) and 5 neutral words. For participants in the neutral prime condition, the word search task only contained 18 neutral words. Participants then completed the violence Implicit Association Test (violence IAT). In Experiment 2, 206 students (108 female) followed the same procedure as experiment 1. After the empathy priming, the participants fulfilled a violent attitude scale, which served as an explicit measure for attitude toward violence. The results indicate that participants in the empathy prime and neutral prime conditions did not differ significantly in their implicit or explicit attitudes toward violence. However, an interaction effect between empathy and sex emerged with regard to explicit attitudes, such that explicit attitudes toward violence significantly reduced after the empathy prime for male participants, but not for female participants. These results suggest that the activating feelings of empathy do not weaken the linking of violence and negative cognition. The effects of empathy on reducing violence depend on the cognitive processing of self-awareness and individuals' dispositional empathy.

Key words: state empathy, attitude toward violence, Implicit Association Test (IAT)

CLC Number: 

  • B844.3
Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihoriet, N., Swing, E. L, Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., et al. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: A meta-analytic review, Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151-173.
Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power → sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 768-781.
Baron, R. A. (1974). Aggression as a function of victim's pain cues, level of prior anger arousal, and exposure to an aggressive model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 117-124.
Barrett, L., Henzi, P., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). Primate cognition: From‘what now' to‘what if'. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 7, 494-497.
Batson, C.D. (2009). These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena. In J. Decety & W.J. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 3-15). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A.Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 183-187.
Davis, Mark, H., Jay, G., Hull, & Richard, D. Young, and Gregory G. Warren (1987). Emotional reactions to dramatic film stimuli: The influence of cognitive and emotional empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 126-133.
Decety, J. (2006). Human empathy. Japanese Journal of Neuropsychology, 22, 11-33.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P.L. (2004) The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavior Cognition Neuroscience Review. 3, 71-100.
Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience. The Scientific World Journal, 6, 1146-1163.
Giancola, P. R. (2003). The moderating effects of dispositional empathy on alcohol-related aggression in men and women. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 275-281.
Gray, N. S., MacCulloch, M. J., Smith, J., Morris, M., & Snowden, R. J. (2003). Violence viewed by psychopathic murderers. Nature, 423, 497-498.
Greenwald, A.G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216.
Harris, S. T., & Picchioni, M. M. (2013). A review of the role of empathy in violence risk in mental disorders. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 18, 335-342.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 441-476.
Kaukiainen, A., et al. (1999). The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 81-89.
Lammers, J., & Stapel, D.A. (2009). How power influences moral thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 279-289.
Lane, K. A., Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2007). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What we know (so far) about the method. In B. Wittenbrink & N. S. Schwarz (Eds.). Implicit Measures of Attitudes: Procedures and Controversies(pp. 59-102). New York: Guilford.
Miller, P. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 324-344.
Ozkan, Y., & Cifci, E. G. (2009). The effect of empathy lever on peer bullying in schools. Humanity & Social Sciences Journal, 4, 31-38.
Perner, J., & Lang, B. (1999). Development of theory of mind and executive control, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 337-344.
Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Cote, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltne, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 771-784.
Richardson, D. R., Hammock, G. S., Smith, S. M., Gardner, W., & Signo, M. (1994). Empathy as a cognitive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 275-289.
Richetin, J., & Richardson, D. S. (2008). Automatic processes and individual differences in aggressive behavior. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 423-430.
Snowden, R. J., & Gray, N. S. (2010). Implicit social cognition in forensic settings. In B. Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds). Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications. New York: Guilford. pp522-534.
Snowden, R. J., Gray, N. S., Smith, J., Morris, M., & MacCulloch, M. J. (2004). Implicit affective associations to violence in psychopathic murderers. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 15, 620-641.
Sprinkle, J. E. (2008). Animals, empathy, and violence: Can animals be used to convey principles of prosocial behavior to children? Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice January, 6, 47-58.
Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (2004). Empathy and observed anger and aggression in five-year-olds. Social Development, 13, 1-13.
Williams, L. E., Hennessey, S. R. & Bargh, J. A. (2011). Finding pleasure in the unpleasant: Social context moderates the enjoyment of aversive Media. Unpublished manuscript. Invited revision at Journal of Consumer Research.
Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101-126.
戴春林, 杨治良, 吴明证. (2005). 内隐攻击性的实验研究. 心理科学, 28, 96-98.
关慕桢, 刘旭峰, 苗丹民, 吕静, 洪霞, 杨海. (2010). 激情犯和累惯犯暴力态度的比较. 心理学报, 42, 599-606.
李小平, 杨晟宇, 李梦遥. (2012). 权威人格与权力感对道德思维方式的影响. 心理学报, 44, 964-971.
徐德淼, 唐日新, 解军. (2007).外显和内隐攻击性表现方式的性别差异实验研究.心理科学, 30, 1342-1344.
肖利军, 刘旭峰, 苗丹民. (2010). 青少年暴力犯罪人格问卷的编制. 实用预防医学, 17, 2140-2142.
杨治良. (2008). 内隐攻击性与同情的关系研究. 宁波大学学报(人文科学版), 21, 94-98.
杨治良, 刘素珍, 高桦. (1996). 内隐与外显社会认知(攻击性)的性别差异之实验研究. 湖北大学学报, 3, 80-83.
应贤慧, 戴春林. (2008). 中学生移情与攻击行为:攻击情绪与认知的中介作用.心理发展与教育, 2, 73-78.
云祥, 李小平, 杨建伟. (2009). 暴力犯内隐攻击性研究. 心理学探新, 29, 62-65.
[1] CHEN Hao-bin, WANG Feng-yan. The Experimental Research on College Students' Implicit Cognition of Wisdom [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2014, 30(4): 363-370.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!