Compassion fade and the challenge of environmental conservation

Judgment and Decision Making

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 397-406

  Markowitz, Ezra M ^a,b   Slovic, Paul ^c,d   Västfjäll, Daniel ^d,e   Hodges, Sara D ^c  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^b PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^d DECISION RESEARCH   (United States)

^e LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Compassion; Decision making; Identifiable victim; Prosocial behavior; Sustainability

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881040878     PISSN: 19302975     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Baron, J. (1997). Confusion of relative and absolute risk in valuation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 301-309.
2. Bartels, D. M. (2006). Proportion dominance: The generality and variability of favoring relative savings over absolute savings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 76-95.
3. Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L.,. Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105-118.
4. Cameron, C. D., & Payne, B. K. (2011). Escaping affect: How motivated emotion regulation creates insensitiv-ity to mass suffering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1-15.
5. Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 45-65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Devousges, W. H., Johnson, F., Dunford, R., Hudson, S., Wilson, K., & Boyle, K. (1993). Measuring resource damages with contingent valuation: Tests of validity and reliability. In J. Hausman (Ed.), Contingent valuation: A critical assessment (pp. 91-164). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
7. Dunn, E. W., & Ashton-James, C. (2008). On emotional innumeracy: Predicted and actual affective responses to grand-scale tragedy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 692-698.
8. Fetherstonhaugh, D., Slovic, P., Johnson, S. M., & Friedrich, J. (1997). Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of psychophysical numbing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 283-300.
9. Friedrich, J., Barnes, P., Chapin, K., Dawson, I., Garst, V., & Kerr, D. (1999). Psychophysical numbing: When lives are valued less as the lives at risk increase. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8, 277-299.
10. Friedrich, J., & Dood, T. L. (2009). How many casualties are too many? Proportional reasoning in the valuation of military and civilian lives. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2541-2569.
11. Friedrich, J., & McGuire, A. (2010). Individual differences in reasoning style as a moderate of the identifiable victim effect. Social Influence, 5, 182-201.
12. Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290-302.
13. Hart, P. S. (2011). One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Science Communication, 33, 28-51.
14. Hsee, C. K., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 23-30.
15. Jenni, K., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining the identifiable victim effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 235-257.
16. Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992). Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 57-70.
17. Kahneman, D., & Ritov, I. (1994). Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 5-38.
18. Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 106-116.
19. Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2007). One of us: Outstanding willingness to help save a single identified compa- triot. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 150-157.
20. MacLean, D. (1986). Social Values and the Distribution of Risk. In D. MacLean (Ed.) Values at risk (pp. 75-93). New Jersey: Rowan and Allanheld.
21. McKibben, B. (2010). Eaarth: Making a life on a tough new planet. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
22. National Research Council. (2010). Advancing the science of climate change. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
23. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2011). Happiness is in our nature: Exploring nature related-ness as a contributor to subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 303-322.
24. Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 972- 987.
25. Ritov, I. & Kogut, T. (2011). Ally or adversary: the effect of identifiability in inter-group conflict situations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 116, 96-103.
26. Schmidt, K., & Wilson, T. D. (2011). When compassion collapses: How more victims can (sometimes) lead to less helping. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX.
27. Slovic, P. (2007). If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 75-95.
28. Slovic, S., & Slovic, P. (2004/2005). Numbers and nerves: Toward an affective apprehension of environmental risk. Whole Terrain, 13, 14-18.
29. Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 143-153.
30. Smith, R. W., Faro, D., & Burson, K. A. (2013, Forthcoming). More for the many: The impact of entitativity on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research.
31. Song, J. (2002, April 26). Every dog has its day-but at what price? The Register-Guard (Eugene, OR), p. 15A.
32. Västfjäll, D., Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2012). Compassion fatigue: Donations and affect are greatest for a single child in need. White paper, Decision Research.