Cited by 477Social and Intergroup PsychologyEmotions and Moral BehaviorPsychology of Social Influence

Escaping affect: how motivated emotion regulation creates insensitivity to mass suffering.

Cameron, C. Daryl, Payne, B. Keith·2011·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

As the number of people in need of help increases, the degree of compassion people feel for them ironically tends to decrease. This phenomenon is termed the collapse of compassion. Some researchers have suggested that this effect happens because emotions are not triggered by aggregates. We provide evidence for an alternative account. People expect the needs of large groups to be potentially overwhelming, and, as a result, they engage in emotion regulation to prevent themselves from experiencing overwhelming levels of emotion. Because groups are more likely than individuals to elicit emotion regulation, people feel less for groups than for individuals. In Experiment 1, participants displayed the collapse of compassion only when they expected to be asked to donate money to the victims. This suggests that the effect is motivated by self-interest. Experiment 2 showed that the collapse of compassion emerged only for people who were skilled at emotion regulation. In Experiment 3, we manipulated emotion regulation. Participants who were told to down-regulate their emotions showed the collapse of compassion, but participants who were told to experience their emotions did not. We examined the time course of these effects using a dynamic rating to measure affective responses in real time. The time course data suggested that participants regulate emotion toward groups proactively, by preventing themselves from ever experiencing as much emotion toward groups as toward individuals. These findings provide initial evidence that motivated emotion regulation drives insensitivity to mass suffering.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0021643

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In large-group contexts with negative emotional exposure, there are specific negative biases affecting individual emotion regulation, such as insensitivity or collapse of compassion.

    “Finally, there is evidence that in large-group contexts with negative emotional exposure (e.g., mass suffering), there are specific negative biases affecting individual ER (e.g., insensitivity, “collapse of compassion”) (Cameron and Payne, 2011).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cameron, C. D., & Payne, B. K.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2011-01
Volume
100
Issue
1
Pages
1-15
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2040904209
Cited by
477
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 15
FWCI
49.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
Keywords
compassion fade, emotion regulation, self-interest, emotional responses
MeSH terms
Altruism, Disasters, Empathy, Female, Helping Behavior, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Social Responsibility, Stress, Psychological, Emotional Intelligence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review