Abstract

In this study, we examined whether estimating pain on victims of the same disaster differs depending on the description of the type of disaster (human vs. natural disaster) and whether the differences can be explained by the perceived controllability of the disaster. According to a pre-registered procedure and method of study, participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions (disaster type: human vs. natural × victim gender: male vs. female), received a scenario, and responded to a manipulation check item. Next, participants answered the questions about the perceived controllability, perceived victim’s emotional/physical pain, attention check, demographic variables, and disaster-related experiences. The results showed that participants in the human disaster condition evaluated the victim’s emotional pain higher than those in the natural condition, but no difference was found in estimating the victim’s physical pain depending on the type of disaster. In addition, participants perceived higher controllability of the human disaster compared to the natural disaster. Contrary to our hypothesis, the relationship between disaster type and estimating pain was not explained by the perceived controllability of the disaster. Additional analyses were conducted by using each item of measuring pain as the dependent variable. We found that the relationship between disaster type and estimating victim’s anger was mediated by the perceived controllability of the disaster. Participants perceived a higher (vs. lower) controllability of human (vs. natural) disaster and it led to the higher (vs. lower) estimation of victim’s anger. This study implies that there is a bias in estimating disaster victims’ pain, depending on whether the disaster is described as a human or natural disaster.