Examining the Outgroup Empathy Gap: When Does Perceived Similarity Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empathy is a social tool highlighted for its role in promoting compassion and understanding for others, including members of the community beyond our close personal relationships. Empathy can increase prosocial behaviour and reduce prejudice, yet there is an observable empathy gap in cross-group contexts. Bridging this gap is critical, especially at a time when group identity is a contributing factor to extreme social polarization. Studies have attempted to increase outgroup empathy, some finding that similarity plays a key role in facilitating it. However, these studies manipulated similarity unidimensionally, either at the level of personal identity or within the broader intergroup context. The current study extends past work by manipulating similarity across multiple levels of identity, examining both the interpersonal and intergroup identities to understand the nuanced relationship between similarity and outgroup empathy. A sample of university students completed an online study that manipulated perceptions of similarity and dissimilarity with an imagined outgroup member across both the intergroup and interpersonal contexts, followed by a measure of outgroup empathy. Results found that outgroup empathy did not significantly differ between different combinations of similarity and dissimilarity at the intergroup and interpersonal levels, raising the question of, 'when does perceived similarity matter'? Further research could shed light on the results of this study by investigating the contexts in which manipulations of similarity are capable of impacting outgroup empathy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".