바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.28 No.3
Citation Share

Impact of Empathy Structure in Groups

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2014, v.28 no.3, pp.93-109
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.3.006


& (2014). Impact of Empathy Structure in Groups. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 28(3), 93-109, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.3.006
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

The present research investigated how empathy structures in task groups affect group members' task-focus, perceived entitativity and cohesion. Empathy structures in task groups were defined at the dyadic level, and three forms of empathy structures were investigated: empathy-balanced, empathy-imbalanced, non-empathy-balanced. It was hypothesized that in the two balanced structures, groups would experience higher levels of task-focus than in the imbalanced structure. In addition, empathy-balanced groups were expected to perceive higher levels of group entitativity and experience higher cohesion than other groups. In Study 1, we used a scenario method and manipulated three types of empathy structure. Results showed that the perceived entitativity was high in the empathy-balance condition, empathy-imbalance condition, and non-empathy-balance condition, in order. We found the same pattern of result on cohesion. We conducted Study 2 using bona-fide groups consists of Korean college students and replicated the findings of Study 2. In addition, groups with a structure of non-empathy-balance reported higher levels of task-focus than did groups with other types of empathy structures. Limitations and implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

keywords
공감, 집단 내 공감 구조, 집단과제 몰입, 집단 실체성 지각, 응집성, empathy, empathy structure in group, task-focus, group entitativity, cohesion

Reference

1.

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis; a method for the study of small groups. Oxford England: Addison-Wesley.

2.

Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1656-1666.

3.

Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 751-758.

4.

Batson, C. D., Eklund, J., Chermok, V. L., Hoyt, J. L., & Ortiz, B. G. (2007). An additional antecedent of empathic concern: Valuing the welfare of the person in need. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 93, 65-74.

5.

Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal Of Personality, 55, 19-39.

6.

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.

7.

Batson, C. D., Turk, C. L., Shaw, L. L., & Klein, T. R. (1995). Information function of empathic emotion: Learning that we value the other's welfere. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 68, 300-313.

8.

Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14-25.

9.

Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31, 71-88.

10.

Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder, CO, US: Westview Press.

11.

Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 713-726.

12.

Davis, M. H., & Oathout, H. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic relationships: Empathy and relational competence. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 53, 397-410.

13.

Davis, M. H., Soderlund, T., Cole, J., Gadol. E., Kute, M., Myers, M., & Weihing, J. (2004). Cognitions associated with attempts to empathize: How do we imagine the perspective of another? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 1625-1635.

14.

Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282.

15.

Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group Dynamics (5th ed). Belmont, CA, US: Cengage Learning.

16.

Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Process and Intergroup Relations, 8, 109-124.

17.

Hackman, J. R. (Ed.). (1990) Groups that work (and those that don't). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336-355.

19.

Håkansson, J., & Montgomery, H. (2002). The role of action in empathy from the perspectives of the empathizer and the target. Current Research in Social Psychology, 8, 50-62.

20.

Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-112

21.

Katz, N., Lazer, D., Arrow, H., & Contractor, N. (2004). Network theory and small groups. Small Group Research, 35, 307-332.

22.

Laurent, S. M., & Myers, M. W. (2011). I know you're me, but who am I? Perspective taking and seeing the other in the self. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1316-1319.

23.

Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 78, 223-246.

24.

Long, E. C., & Andrews, D. W. (1990). Perspective taking as a predictor of marital adjustment. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 59, 126-131.

25.

Meneses, R., Ortega, R., Navarro, J., & de Quijano, S. D. (2008). Criteria for assessing the level of group development (LGD) of work groups: Groupness, entitativity, and groupality as theoretical perspectives. Small Group Research, 39, 492-514.

26.

Spoor, J. R., & Kelly, J. R. (2004). The Evolutionary Significance of Affect in Groups: Communication and Group Bonding. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7, 398-412.7

27.

Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006). Empathy-Motivated Helping: The Moderating Role of Group Membership. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 943-956.

28.

Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2005). Prosocial Emotions and Helping: The Moderating Role of Group Membership. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 88, 532-546.

29.

Zaki, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. (2008). It takes two: The interpersonal nature of empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 19, 399-404.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy