Against Empathy Bias: The Moral Value of Equitable Empathy

Unveiling Unexpected Selfless Collectivism: Exploring Variances in Moral Beliefs Across Cultural Values

Purpose

The impact of moral beliefs on individuals' moral judgments, particularly within the framework of contrasting cultural values such as collectivism and individualism, continues to be a subject of interest. This research delves into whether individuals with distinct values display differences in moral beliefs, with a specific focus on selflessness.

Methods

Through experiment 1 and 2, we scrutinize the moral judgments of individuals with diverse values concerning pro-social behaviors driven by selflessness and in-group favoritism. Experiment 3 investigates the underlying mechanisms by examining reward expectations.

Results

The findings from experiments 1 and 2 indicate that collectivists exhibit significantly higher moral judgment levels for selfless pro-social behaviors compared to individualists, highlighting a disparity in moral beliefs between the two value systems. Experimental 2 also found that collectivists' moral judgments rose and fell as rescuers' selflessness increased or decreased. However, individualist moral judgment did not change significantly with behavioral selflessness. The results reveal that collectivists hold higher reward expectations for selfless behavior, which contributes to their heightened moral judgment of selfless behavior.

Conclusion

While it may be assumed that collectivists' moral beliefs would be dominated by in-group preferences, aligning with the conceptual in-group preference of collectivism, this study unexpectedly found evidence of collectivists' pursuit of selflessness in their moral beliefs. These findings offer initial evidence of distinct patterns of moral beliefs associated with collectivism and individualism, shedding light on potential reasons that lead collectivists to possess stronger moral beliefs about selflessness.

Unveiling the Paradox of Selflessness: Exploring Perceptions of Hypocrisy and Priority Outgroup in Intergroup Moral Dilemmas

Purpose

This study examines the impact of prioritizing the out-group in intergroup moral dilemmas. The research aims to achieve three primary objectives: 1) investigating the relationship between out-group prioritization and perceptions of hypocrisy, 2) exploring the influence of perceived hypocrisy and negative emotions on moral judgments, and 3) uncovering the underlying reasons for perceiving outgroup prioritization as hypocritical.

Methods

Experiments 1, 2 and 3 involved presenting Chinese participants with out-group rescuers and in-group rescuers and asking them to rate the two on three dimensions: level of hypocrisy, level of morality, and negative emotions toward the rescuers. In Experiment 3, the degree of similarity between participants and rescuers was manipulated to control for the level at which participants projected their own intrinsic motivations (ie, self-interest) onto the rescuers.

Results

Experiments 1 and 2 jointly showed that participants perceived the out-group rescuer as more hypocritical and immoral compared to the in-group rescuer, and that participants had stronger negative emotions toward the out-group rescuer. Mediation analysis also demonstrated that the perception of hypocrisy and negative emotions largely mediated the relationship between the different rescuers and participants' evaluation of the rescuers' morality. In Experiment 3, participants gave higher hypocrisy ratings to high projection out-group rescuers compared to low projection out-group rescuers.

Conclusion

In intergroup dilemmas, choosing to sacrifice the in-group to rescue the outgroup is perceived as more hypocritical, immoral, and objectionable. Perceived hypocrisy arises from an incongruity between individuals' subjective judgments of the rescuers' self-interest motives and the altruistic choice made by the rescuers to rescue the out-group.

Empathy rules, maps and paths: A qualitative exploration of the factors that facilitate or inhibit empathy and prosocial responding among youth

The aim of this study is to explore young people's perspectives on the factors that facilitate or inhibit empathy and prosocial responding among youth. Qualitative focus groups (n = 29) were undertaken with Irish young people aged 13-17 years relating to their views on the factors that facilitate or inhibit the expression of empathy. Parents, friends, and social media were found to be key influences, whereas barriers identified included societal norms, gender norms, lack of skill, or knowledge and target characteristics. This research provides important insights into adolescents' perceptions of the social correlates of empathy. Concepts from the sociology of empathy, such as empathy maps and paths, are helpful in drawing out the implications for future research and practice.

Ethical reasoning versus empathic bias: a false dichotomy?

Does empathy necessarily impede equity in altruism? Emerging findings from cognitive and affective science suggest that rationality and empathy are mutually compatible, contradicting some earlier, prominent arguments that empathy impedes equitable giving. We propose alternative conceptualizations of relationships among empathy, rationality, and equity, drawing on interdisciplinary advances in altruism research.

Do Bad People Deserve Empathy? Selective Empathy Based on Targets' Moral Characteristics

The relation between empathy and morality is a widely discussed topic. However, previous discussions mainly focused on whether and how empathy influences moral cognition and moral behaviors, with limited attention to the reverse influence of morality on empathy. This review summarized how morality influences empathy by drawing together a number of hitherto scattered studies illustrating the influence of targets' moral characteristics on empathy. To explain why empathy is morally selective, we discuss its ultimate cause, to increase survival rates, and five proximate causes based on similarity, affective bonds, the appraisal of deservingness, dehumanization, and potential group membership. To explain how empathy becomes morally selective, we consider three different pathways (automatic, regulative, and mixed) based on previous findings. Finally, we discuss future directions, including the reverse influence of selective empathy on moral cognition, the moral selectivity of positive empathy, and the role of selective empathy in selective helping and third-party punishment.

Empathic concern induction modulates behavioral ratings and neural responses to harm-related moral judgment: An event-related potentials study

Although empathic concern is critical in harm-related moral judgment, the temporal dynamics underlying the impact of empathic concern on moral judgment remain unclear. This study used event-related potentials (ERPs) to investigate how empathic concern induction shaped the way individuals perceive harmful/helpful behaviors. Behavioral results showed that participants assigned more blame to harmful behaviors in the empathic concern priming condition compared to those in the control condition. ERP results showed that helpful behaviors elicited larger N1 than did harmful behaviors. Additionally, harmful behaviors in the empathic concern priming condition elicited more negative N2 than did harmful behaviors in the control condition. Moreover, harmful behaviors elicited larger late positive potential (LPP) than did helpful behaviors in the control condition. These findings suggest that (1) empathic concern induction might increase moral sensitivity about harm-related norms; (2) participants independent of the empathic concern manipulation can distinguish between harmful behaviors and helpful behaviors similarly, as indicated by the early ERP component (N1); (3) empathic concern especially influences the intermediate (N2) and later (LPP) ERP components.

Moral foundations, values, and judgments in extraordinary altruists

Donating a kidney to a stranger is a rare act of extraordinary altruism that appears to reflect a moral commitment to helping others. Yet little is known about patterns of moral cognition associated with extraordinary altruism. In this preregistered study, we compared the moral foundations, values, and patterns of utilitarian moral judgments in altruistic kidney donors (n = 61) and demographically matched controls (n = 58). Altruists expressed more concern only about the moral foundation of harm, but no other moral foundations. Consistent with this, altruists endorsed utilitarian concerns related to impartial beneficence, but not instrumental harm. Contrary to our predictions, we did not find group differences between altruists and controls in basic values. Extraordinary altruism generally reflected opposite patterns of moral cognition as those seen in individuals with psychopathy, a personality construct characterized by callousness and insensitivity to harm and suffering. Results link real-world, costly, impartial altruism primarily to moral cognitions related to alleviating harm and suffering in others rather than to basic values, fairness concerns, or strict utilitarian decision-making.

Effect of doctor-patient news-induced moral judgments on pain empathy for doctors and patients in China

Objective

Pain empathy's preferential nature tends to trigger prejudice and intergroup conflicts. Given the current degree of proliferation of doctor-patient conflict news in China, this study aims to determine whether readers of doctor-patient news-initiated moral judgments prefer pain empathy for doctors or patients.

Materials and methods

This study utilized localized doctor-patient news with high or low moral performance (based on morality ratings of patients' behaviors) as moral-judgment-eliciting materials, and painful pictures as pain empathy-eliciting materials. The event-related potential (ERP) technique was utilized to assess moral judgment's effect on the cognitive empathy component and to investigate electroencephalogram signals' accuracy in classifying four brain response patterns when facing doctor or patient is experiencing or not experiencing pain.

Results

Under low moral text material, participants exhibited smaller mean wave amplitude of positive 300 (P3) and late positive potential (LPP) to painful pictures than non-painful pictures when facing patients; under high moral text material, participants exhibited larger mean wave amplitude of P3 and LPP to painful pictures than non-painful pictures when facing doctors. Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals' classification accuracy was significant in 0-1,000 ms in both high and low moral judgments, but the classification accuracy was higher in low moral judgments in some cognitive empathy stages (0.51, 0.53-0.55, 0.66-0.79, and 0.88-1 s).

Conclusion

Under low moral judgment, individuals pay less attention to the patient's (perpetrator's) pain; under high moral judgment, individuals empathize with the doctor (the person praised), showing that news-induced moral judgment can sway readers' empathy for different social groups. In cognitive empathy, individuals' brain representations are more discriminatory under low than high moral judgments when confronted with pain by doctors and patients, which provides insight into objectively recognizing group bias.

Empathy regulation, prosociality, and moral judgment

In this review, we examine relationships between empathy, prosocial behavior, and moral judgment. We focus on recent evidence for these relationships, with a focus on motivated empathy regulation as an important process that shapes empathic and moral outcomes. In particular, we highlight tradeoffs in contexts that involve competing victims with different needs, such as in large-scale suffering situations and sacrificial moral dilemmas, as well as on effects on punishment and recursive effects of morality on empathy. Our aim is to integrate motivation frameworks in empathy regulation and social cognition with prosocial and moral judgments.