social influences on compassion- daryl cameron

7/27/2019 Social Influences on Compassion- Daryl Cameron

1/32

SOCIALINFLUENCES ON

COMPASSION

Daryl CameronUniversity of Iowa


2/32

CO SS O


3/32


4/32

TYPES OF SOCIALINFLUENCE(1) Contexts time pressure, others present, largenumbers

(2) Appraisals/attributions blame, similarity

(3) Attitudes fear of compassion, identification with allhumanity


5/32


6/32

NOTICING THE EVENT

Good Samaritan Study(Darley & Batson, 1974)

Seminary students

Lecture topic: GoodSamaritan v. control

Time pressure: Early v.on time v. late

0

10

2030

40

50

6070

Early On time Late

Percentage Helping


7/32

INTERPRETING IT AS ANEMERGENCYPluralistic ignorance: Thinking others are interpreting asituation 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


8/32

TAKING RESPONSIBILITY

Diffusion of responsibility / the bystander effect: asnumber of witnesses increases, each individuals sense

of responsibility decreasesDarley & Latane (1968):


9/32

One death is a tragedy.One million is a

statistic.

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

LARGE NUMBERS


10/32


11/32

COLLAPSINGCOMPASSION


12/32



13/32



14/32

WHY?

Option 1: Psychic numbing (Slovic, 2007)

Automaticemotionalimpulse

Imagery AttentionControlled

deliberation cannottrigger compassion


15/32

WHY?

Option 2: Proactive emotion regulation (Cameron & Payne, 2011)

Controlledemotionregulation

Motivation toregulate

compassion

Ability to regulatecompassion

We have the abilityto feel compassion

for many victims


16/32


17/32


18/32

CHANGING MOTIVATION REMOVES THECOLLAPSE OF COMPASSION.

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

Help Request No Help Request

C o m p a s s

i o n

t o w a r d

V i c t i m s

One Victim Eight Victims


19/32

UNSKILLED EMOTION REGULATORS DONT SHOW THECOLLAPSE OF COMPASSION.

Number maineffect,

p = .24

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

L o g - t r a n s f o r m e

d U p s e

t R a

t i n g s

Time

Unskilled Emotion Regulators (+1 SD DERS)

One VictimFour VictimsEight Victims

Number maineffect,

p = .24


20/32

SKILLED EMOTION REGULATORS DO.

Number maineffect,

p = .001

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

L o g - t r a n s f o r m e

d U p s e

t R a

t i n g s

Time

Skilled Emotion Regulators (-1 SD DERS)

One VictimFour VictimsEight Victims

Number maineffect,

p = .001


21/32

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 exhaustionIntergroup aversion


22/32

EMPATHY AVOIDANCE


23/32

BLAME &DESERVINGNESS


24/32

BLAME &

DESERVINGNESS

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Low Burnout High Burnout

M i n d S c a

l e

NegativeNeutral


25/32

FEAR OF COMPASSION

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

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

Fear that compassion leads to exploitation, exhaustion,

weakness


26/32


27/32

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 meand 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.

b d f


28/32

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Low Fear of Compassion (-1 SD) High Fear of Compassion (+1 SD)

E m o t i o n I n t e n s i t y

( 1 - 5

)

Emotion Intensity by Emotion Type and Fear of Compassion for Others

Compassion Disgust Distress

I l i A id f H l P l b


29/32

-400.0

-350.0

-300.0

-250.0

-200.0

-150.0

-100.0

-50.0

0.0

50.0

100.0

Low Fear of Compassion (-1 SD) High Fear of Compassion (+1 SD)

I M P U L S I V E A V O I D A N C E ( M S )

( A P P R O A C H - A

V O I D A N C E R T ' S )

Impulsive Avoidance of Homeless People byFinancial Cost of Helping and Fear of Compassion

High Cost Condition Low Cost Condition


30/32

CLASS, STATUS, POWER

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

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

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


31/32

SIMILARITY

Compassion Similarity

Oveis et al. (2010)

Valdesolo &DeSteno (2011)


32/32

IDENTIFICATION WITH

ALL HUMANITYIdentification 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 thefollowing?

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 feeli

social influences on compassion- daryl cameron

Documents