Walter G. Stephan

Marisa Mealy

CentralConnecticutStateUniversity

Walter G. Stephan

University of Hawaii

Intergroup Empathy

Empathy plays a crucial role in intergroup relations because it helps members of groups with differing worldviews, interests, and histories to develop an understanding of one another. Intergroup empathy occurs when members of one social group identify with the emotions or perspectives of members of another social group. Empathy holds great promise as a means of improving intergroup relations because of its potential to reduce prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination. However, it is not a simple panacea, but rather a complex and subtle process involving cognitive, affective, and communicative elements that develop over time. Understanding the causes and consequences of intergroup empathy will make it possible to facilitate interactions between members of different groups andrefine intergroup relations programs.

There are three distinct types of intergroup empathy: Cognitive, affective, and behavioral. Cognitive empathy refers to the ability to see the world from the perspective of a member of another group. It is useful in acquiring knowledge about the cultural practices, norms, values, beliefs, standards, andviews of outgroup members. Thus, cognitive empathy can make the outgroup seem less alien and lead to the humanizing and individualizing of outgroup members,thereby reducing cognitive biases in intergroup perception.

There are two sub-types of affective empathy: Parallel empathy and reactive empathy. Parallel empathy occurs when an ingroup member experiences emotions similar to those being experienced by the outgroup member, although often of lower intensity. For instance, if an outgroup member is feeling depressed and this leads the ingroup member to feel a corresponding sadness, that is parallel empathy. Parallel empathy can involve identifying with others’ hopes and joys as well as their anger, fear, and pain.

In reactive empathy, the emotional response of the ingroup member differs from that of the outgroup member. For example, if an outgroup member is suffering due to discrimination and an ingroup member feels sorrow in response to their plight, that is reactive empathy. In the context of others’ suffering, reactive empathy can involve two contrasting affective responses: compassion and personal distress. Compassion related responses are composed of emotions that are positive in nature, such as sympathy, kindness, and concern. These emotions generally lead to improvements in intergroup relations. On the other hand, personal distress responses are comprised primarily of negative feelings such as anxiety, threat, and revulsion. Personal distress often leads to a distancing between ingroup and outgroup members and, as a result, is unlikely to lead to improvements in intergroup relations. One especially complicated personal distress response is guilt, which may occur when a person perceives that injustices experienced by the outgroup were caused by his or heringroup. Guilt might motivate actions to redress the wrongs against the outgroup, but it could as easily lead to defensive avoidance.

The two types of affective empathy are not mutually exclusive and can occur simultaneously. An ingroup member may experience positive reactive empathy, such as compassion for the suffering of an outgroup member, while at the same time feeling the parallel emotional reaction of resentment towards one’s own ingroup for causing the suffering. Mixed emotions elicited while experiencing emotional empathy may be confusing to ingroup members and limit the degree to which improvements in intergroup relations occur.

Intergroup empathy also has a behavioral component. This componentinvolves overtly communicating acomprehension of the experiences of the outgroup member or displaying insight into their experiences or emotional reactions. An outward show of concern in word and deed in response to another’s suffering would be an example of the communicative aspect of empathy.

Although, it is clear that there are individual differences in empathy, it is equally clear that contextual factors can activate or inhibit empathy in most people. As is true for empathy in general, it is most likely that individual differences in intergroup empathyhave a developmental trajectory because they are acquired gradually over time. Recent studies of twins have found that environmental factors, such as parental socialization, play a more important role in the development of general empathic abilitiesthan genetic factors. It also appears that experiences with empathy have a cumulative effect-- the more frequently it is experienced, the more empathic the individual becomes.

Research indicates that when intergroup empathy is activated,more favorable attitudes toward the outgroup oftenresult. This finding has been obtained for a variety of outgroups including ethno-cultural groups, people with terminal illness, the homeless, and even prisoners on death row. However, researchers have found thatempathymay notreduce attitudinal bias toward groups in which membership is both temporaryand under the control of the actor. For instance, empathy does not reduce negative attitudes toward obese people,apparently because obesity is thought to be transitory and under individual control.

Empathy has also been shown to play a role in promoting prosocial and preventing antisocial behavior. For example, in situations where people experience empathic concern, they are likely to engage in prosocial (altruistic) behavior. Research indicates that people who areexperiencing empathy for others allocate more resources to them. In contrast, a lack of empathy is associated with a greater willingness to inflict pain and suffering on others (e.g., sexual aggression, child abuse, and violence). One study found that adolescent sexual offenders had low levels of empathy for their victims.

Because empathy can create conflicts between an individual’s prior attitudes, emotions, and behaviors and their current attitudes, emotions, and behaviors, it can lead to cognitive dissonance. For instance, when an ingroup member experiences a positive empathic connection with a member of a previously disliked outgroup, a discrepancy is created between the prior attitude and the current positive emotional response to the other. In order to reduce the internal conflict created by this dissonance, the individual may change their attitudes to be in accord with the positivevalence of their empathic response. Yet, there is also a danger that feelings of dissonance may lead to the dismissing or downplaying empathic reactions in order to make current behavior consistent with prior negative attitudes.

Empathy does not operate in isolation, but rather can be viewed as an intervening variable that helps to explain a complex web of causation between situational experiences and their ultimate effects. Intergroup contact, intergroup relations training, or acquiringknowledge of outgroup members may create intergroup empathy. This empathic response can then lead to changes in individual attitudes and behavior, thereby contributing to improvements in intergroup relations. For example, interacting with an individual from a disadvantaged group, such as the disabled, may activate compassionate reactive empathy leading to a concern for the individual outgroup member, which may thengeneralize to the outgroup as a whole. Likewise, anger toward the ingroup that is created through parallel empathy due to the injustices suffered by an ethnic outgroup can lead to a reappraisal of more general beliefs, such as beliefs in a just world.

Because of its’ potential beneficial influence on attitudes, emotions, and behavior, empathy is often an explicit element of programs designed to improve intercultural relations, intergroup relations, diversity in the workforce, and conflict resolution skills. For instance, in multicultural education programs, information regarding the similarities and differences between various racial, ethnic, and cultural groups is presented from the perspective of each group. Intergroup dialogue programs provide members of two groups that have a history of conflict, such as Muslims and Christians, with an opportunity to discuss their own experiences and listen to the experiences of others. Participation in such groups has been shown to increase empathy. Likewise, participants in multi-ethnic cooperative-learning groups display an increase in empathy.

For intergroup empathy to fulfill its promise as a tool to improve intergroup relations, there are many questions that remain to be answered. Do the different types of empathy have different consequences for intergroup cognitions, emotions, and behaviors? What are the most effective techniques of teaching empathy? At what ages can it be employed? What types of situations are most likely to activate it? How can the pitfalls of defensiveness and personal distress responses be avoided? Are there other types of empathy that need to be examined? And, finally, how long do its effects last and how can enduring effects be maximized? As the answers to these questions emerge, intergroup empathy will come to play an ever more prominent role in our understanding of intergroup relations.