Us and Them: Intergroup Failures of Empathy
Open accessAbstract
People are often motivated to increase others' positive experiences and to alleviate others' suffering. These tendencies to care about and help one another form the foundation of human society. When the target is an outgroup member, however, people may have powerful motivations not to care about or help that “other.” In such cases, empathic responses are rare and fragile; it is easy to disrupt the chain from perception of suffering to motivation to alleviate the suffering to actual helping. We highlight recent interdisciplinary research demonstrating that outgroup members' suffering elicits dampened empathic responses as compared to ingroup members' suffering. We consider an alternative to empathy in the context of intergroup competition: schadenfreude—pleasure at others' pain. Finally, we review recent investigations of intergroup-conflict interventions that attempt to increase empathy for outgroups. We propose that researchers across the range of psychological sciences stand to gain a better understanding of the foundations of empathy by studying its limitations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Highlighting group boundaries can undermine empathy with those who are socially distant.
“Highlighting group boundaries can undermine empathy with those who are socially distant 26,27”
From Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response (2020) · cites this paper as [26]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 725
- Authors
- Cikara, M., Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. R.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cikara, Mina
- Venue
- Current Directions in Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-06
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 149-153
- ISSN
- 0963-7214 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8721
- OpenAlex
- W2125241848
- Semantic Scholar
- 0be3fc3d8889d441ad15bb9409a322d25ed54e71
- Cited by
- 725
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 53 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 69 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 59.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Current Directions in Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion)
- DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Keywords
- empathy, outgroup members, in-group favoritism, schadenfreude, intergroup conflict, helping behavior, compassion fade, empathy interventions, intergroup competition, altruism
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