Across three experiments, we examined parochial empathy and its effects on attitudes and behavior toward threatening out-groups. In the context of American/Arab relations (Study 1), in-group and out-group empathy each independently and significantly predicted long-term attitudes and behavior toward Arabs and mediated the effect of intergroup ID on these outcomes. In the context of Hungarian/refugees (Study 2) and Greek/German relations (Study 3), in-group and out-group empathy significantly and oppositely predicted altruistic attitudes and behaviors toward Muslim refugees (in Hungarians) and passive harm of Germans (in Greeks), this time controlling for trait EC.
Across a range of intergroup contexts, we found that while trait EC was correlated with both in-group and out-group empathy ratings separately, trait EC was not correlated with the difference between in-group and out-group empathy (i.e., parochial empathy). More importantly, across all three cultural contexts, parochial empathy was a stronger predictor of altruism and passive harm toward out-groups than was trait empathy. Indeed, the current research indicates that trait EC is a poor predictor of out-group altruism and out-group passive harm. Rather, the research reported here supports an alternative empathy profile for those who withhold aid and advocate passive harm to the out-group: Low enough empathy for the out-group that withholding help or condoning harm is emotionally acceptable, and simultaneously high enough empathy for in-group members that they are sufficiently motivated to withhold help or condone harm on their behalf.
Empathy is one of a number of emotions that are shaped by social identities. For example, moral emotions, such as guilt and shame in response to in-group transgressions, have been shown to drive intergroup forgiveness and foster reconciliation, and positive emotions (e.g., hope) have been shown to similarly ease intergroup aggression (Cohen-Chen, Halperin, Crisp, & Gross, 2013). On the other hand, negative emotions such as anger and hatred drive conflict and prevent reconciliation (in some circumstances; e.g., Halperin, 2008). Obviously, the internal forces that ultimately pull someone toward and away from intergroup conflict are numerous, and mapping the unique contributions of each of these forces will be an important undertaking.
One avenue for future research will be to determine which intergroup outcomes are best predicted by each intergroup emotion. Here, we focused on outcomes that we hypothesized would be most directly affected by intergroup empathy: intergroup altruism and passive harm. On the other hand, previous research has shown that the approach motivated emotion of anger effectively drives support for (or engagement in) more active intergroup harm (Lickel et al., 2006; Spanovic, Lickel, Denson, & Petrovic, 2010). Future studies could test whether increasing moral emotions like shame may foster more indirect, symbolic gestures to the aggrieved out-group, such as a formal apology or an offer of reparations, whereas decreasing parochial empathy may be more likely to foster prosocial interpersonal gestures, such as helping an out-group target. At the same time, future work could also examine how intergroup emotions interact with each other to drive conflict. For example, it would be interesting to determine the potential relationship between in-group empathy, intergroup anger, and active harm of the out-group. This approach could connect the work on parochial empathy, examined here, with related research on “empathic anger” (Vitaglione & Barnett, 2003).
Finally, it is important to note some limitations of the current research. Although we replicated the main effects across a range of cultural contexts, the empathy measures were based on self-report and therefore subject to demand characteristics. Future performance-based or neuroimaging measures could be used to circumvent this issue. Additionally, the measures used in the current research were constrained to one facet of intergroup empathy (i.e., EC). Future research should also examine different forms of intergroup empathy. For example, personal distress (the amount of anxiety or distress one feels in the presence of others’ suffering) is another type of empathy that could be examined in the intergroup contexts. Personal distress has generally been found to be associated with avoidance rather than helping when avoidance is an option (Batson, Fultz, & Schoenrade, 1987). However, if the distressing situation cannot be avoided, personal distress has been shown to predict altruism even better than EC (Batson et al., 1981). It would therefore be interesting to determine the degree to which intergroup empathy as personal distress motivates behavior in the context of intergroup conflict, particularly in protracted conflicts that that may feel inescapable.
