Industrial & Labor Relations School, Cornell University.
Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2018 May;114(5):665-692. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000112.
We explore the relationship between group-based egalitarianism and empathy for members of advantaged groups (e.g., corporate executives; state officials) versus disadvantaged groups (e.g., blue-collar workers; schoolteachers) subjected to harmful actions, events, or policies. Whereas previous research suggests that anti-egalitarians (vs. egalitarians) dispositionally exhibit less empathy for others, we propose that this relationship depends on the target's position in the social hierarchy. We examined this question across eight studies (N = 3,154) conducted in the U.S. and the U.K., including online and in-person experiments and examining attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. We observed that (anti-)egalitarianism negatively predicted empathy for members of disadvantaged groups subjected to harmful situations, but positively predicted empathy for members of advantaged groups. This pattern held regardless of perceivers' own membership in advantaged or disadvantaged groups (i.e., perceiver gender, race, or SES). (Anti-)egalitarianism's differential effects on empathy for advantaged versus disadvantaged targets were attributable in part to differences in perceived degree of harm incurred (beyond roles for perceived value conflict and perceived deservingness): Egalitarians perceived the same action as more harmful than anti-egalitarians when it occurred to a disadvantaged target but less harmful than anti-egalitarians when it occurred to an advantaged target. We also explored how these patterns informed individuals' downstream policy attitudes and policy-relevant behavior (e.g., willingness to sign a petition). Our findings enrich understanding of (anti-)egalitarianism by testing competing perspectives on the link between (anti-)egalitarianism and empathy, and by demonstrating when and why individuals' preferences for social equality (vs. hierarchy) lead them to extend versus withhold empathy. (PsycINFO Database Record
我们探讨了基于群体的平等主义与对处于有利地位（如企业高管、政府官员）和不利地位（如蓝领工人、教师）群体成员的同理心之间的关系，这些群体成员受到有害行为、事件或政策的影响。虽然之前的研究表明，反平等主义者（与平等主义者相比）在性格上对他人的同理心较少，但我们提出，这种关系取决于目标在社会等级中的地位。我们在美国和英国进行了八项研究（N=3154），包括在线和现场实验，以检验态度和行为结果，从而检验了这个问题。我们观察到，（反）平等主义与对处于不利地位的群体成员在遭受有害情况时的同理心呈负相关，但与对处于有利地位的群体成员的同理心呈正相关。无论感知者自己是否属于有利或不利群体（即感知者的性别、种族或 SES），这种模式都成立。（反）平等主义对有利和不利目标的同理心的差异影响部分归因于感知到的伤害程度的差异（超越了感知到的价值冲突和感知到的应得性的作用）：当不利目标受到同样的行为时，平等主义者认为比反平等主义者更具危害性，但当有利目标受到同样的行为时，平等主义者认为比反平等主义者的危害性更小。我们还探讨了这些模式如何影响个人的下游政策态度和与政策相关的行为（例如，签署请愿书的意愿）。我们的发现通过测试（反）平等主义与同理心之间联系的竞争观点，以及通过证明个人对社会平等（与等级）的偏好何时以及为何导致他们扩展或保留同理心，丰富了对（反）平等主义的理解。（心理学信息库记录）
