SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON COMPASSION

Daryl Cameron University of Iowa

TYPES OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE

(1) Contextstime pressure, others present, large numbers

(2) Appraisals/attributionsblame, similarity

(3) Attitudesfear of compassion, identification with all humanity

NOTICING THE EVENT

Good Samaritan Study (Darley & Batson, 1974)
Percentage Helping
70

Seminary students
Lecture topic: Good Samaritan v. control Time pressure: Early v. on time v. late

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Early On time Late

INTERPRETING IT AS AN EMERGENCY
Pluralistic ignorance: Thinking others are interpreting a situation in a certain way even when theyre not

Latane & Darley (1968): smoke-filled room study

When people were alone, 75% intervened; with 2 passive confederates, only 10% did so

TAKING RESPONSIBILITY
Diffusion of responsibility / the bystander effect: as number of witnesses increases, each individuals sense of responsibility decreases

Darley & Latane (1968):

LARGE NUMBERS
statistic.
One death is a tragedy. One million is a

If I look at the mass, I will never act.

COLLAPSING COMPASSION

COLLAPSING COMPASSION

COLLAPSING COMPASSION

WHY?
Option 1: Psychic numbing
(Slovic, 2007)

Automatic emotional impulse

Controlled deliberation cannot trigger compassion

Imagery

Attention

WHY?
Option 2: Proactive emotion regulation (Cameron & Payne, 2011) Controlled emotion regulation
We have the ability to feel compassion for many victims

Motivation to regulate compassion

Ability to regulate compassion

CHANGING MOTIVATION REMOVES THE COLLAPSE OF COMPASSION.

6.5

Compassion toward Victims

6.0

5.5

5.0 Help Request One Victim Eight Victims No Help Request

UNSKILLED EMOTION REGULATORS DONT SHOW THE COLLAPSE OF COMPASSION.

Unskilled Emotion Regulators (+1 SD DERS)
2.5

Log-transformed Upset Ratings

2.3

Number Number main main effect, effect, p = .24 p = .24

2.1
One Victim Four Victims Eight Victims

1.9

1.7

1.5

Time

SKILLED EMOTION REGULATORS DO.

Skilled Emotion Regulators (-1 SD DERS)
2.5

Log-transformed Upset Ratings

2.3

Number Number main main effect, effect, p = .001 p = .001

2.1
One Victim Four Victims Eight Victims

1.9

1.7

1.5

Time

EMPATHY AVOIDANCE
Empathy avoidance (Shaw, Batson, & Todd, 1994)
People sometimes strategically avoid situations that will trigger compassion if they believe that compassionate behavior will be costly

What kinds of costs may be salient in helping situations? Financial expense Emotional exhaustion

Intergroup aversion

EMPATHY AVOIDANCE

BLAME & DESERVINGNESS

BLAME & DESERVINGNESS

5 4.5 Mind Scale 4 3.5 3 Negative Neutral

2.5 2
Low Burnout High Burnout

FEAR OF COMPASSION
Gilbert et al. (2011): fear of compassion toward self and others

Fear of compassion can be develop from negative attachment experiences (i.e., abuse, neglect)

Fear that compassion leads to exploitation, exhaustion, weakness

FEAR OF COMPASSION
Fear of Compassion Scales (Gilbert et al., 2010):

Fear of Compassion for Others:

I worry that if I am compassionate, people will be drawn to me and drain my emotional resources.
Being too compassionate makes people soft and easy to take advantage of.

There are some people in life who dont deserve compassion.

Emotion Intensity by Emotion Type and Fear of Compassion for Others

5.0 Emotion Intensity (1-5)

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0 Low Fear of Compassion (-1 SD) Compassion Disgust High Fear of Compassion (+1 SD) Distress

Impulsive Avoidance of Homeless People by Financial Cost of Helping and Fear of Compassion
100.0 50.0 IMPULSIVE AVOIDANCE (MS) (APPROACH-AVOIDANCE RT'S) 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0 -200.0 -250.0 -300.0 -350.0 -400.0 Low Fear of Compassion (-1 SD) High Cost Condition High Fear of Compassion (+1 SD) Low Cost Condition

CLASS, STATUS, POWER

Higher socioeconomic status is associated with reduced generosity, charity, as moderated by compassion (Piff et al., 2010)

Lower class associated with greater self-reported compassion and heart rate deceleration in response to compassion video (Stellar et al., 2012)

High SES linked with more utilitarian decisions to kill one to save many, mediated by reduced compassion (Cote, Piff & Willer, 2012)

SIMILARITY
Oveis et al. (2010)

Compassion

Similarity

Valdesolo & DeSteno (2011)

IDENTIFICATION WITH ALL HUMANITY

Identification With All Humanity Scale (McFarland et al., 2012): individual differences in scope of moral concern

How much do you identify with (that is, feel a part of, feel love toward, have concern for) each of the following?
People in my community Americans All humans everywhere

Associated with caring about humanitarian issues, contributing to human rights causes, valuing lives of outgroup members, and the trait tendency to feel compassion