Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41238750›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2025

Brief empathy interventions online can decrease but not increase empathic tendencies.

Alexander Tagesson, Annika Wallin, Philip Pärnamets

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alexander TagessonDepartment of Philosophy, Division of Cognitive Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. alexander.tagesson@lucs.lu.se.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4139-7377
Annika WallinDepartment of Philosophy, Division of Cognitive Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6019-8264
Philip PärnametsDivision of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8360-9097

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People often feel less empathy towards outgroup compared to ingroup targets. Overcoming this intergroup empathy bias is important for fostering positive intergroup relations. In five pre-registered and high-powered online studies (n = 4776 (745/745/1056/1236/994)), we attempted to replicate and generalize motivated empathy interventions that previously have made people more empathetic and prosocial towards outgroup targets. Using both between- and within-subject designs, self-reported empathy measures and factual monetary donations, we examined the effects of several brief interventions. The interventions targeted avoidance motivations based on beliefs about the un/limited nature of empathy or approach motivations based on beliefs about empathy's malleability or normatively desirability. Across studies, we tested the interventions in several in- and intergroup contexts, using both novel and preexisting stimuli. In general, interventions failed to increase empathy or prosocial behaviour. Instead, inducing beliefs about the limited nature of empathy often reduced participants' empathy. Motivating people to withhold empathy may be easier than motivating them to increase it.

Identifiers

PMID41238750
PMCPMC12618501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.