The Effects of Stereotypes About Animals’ Competence and Warmth on Empathy Choice

ABSTRACTThe present preregistered research examined whether animal stereotypes predict choosing to empathize with them. In two studies (ns = 173 and 202), participants chose between taking an empathic or objective perspective with 48 animals representing 16 different species, classified into four groups representing perceived competence and warmth. While less likely to choose an empathic than an objective perspective for all animal groups, empathy choice was stronger for those stereotyped as high-competent (vs. low-competent, Study 1 and 2) and high-warmth (vs. low-warmth, Study 2 only) species. Variation in cognitive difficulty of being empathic (vs. objective) helped explain empathy choice preferences derived from stereotypes about animals, most robustly stereotypes about an animal’s competence (Studies 1 and 2). Suggesting its importance, empathy choice was positively associated with the amount participants were willing to donate toward each animal’s welfare (Study 2).KEYWORDS: Animalscompetencehuman–animal interactionmotivated empathystereotypeswarmth Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Notes1 Relative to pests and predators, prey species are high in warmth, but they are not as high in warmth as the companion animals, resulting in prey being characterized as moderate in warmth.2 We pre-registered comparing four clusters in a one-way ANOVA as an alternative to the 2 × 2 analyses reported here. Results confirmed a stronger effect for competence than warmth in both studies. Study 1 results suggest a stronger preference for high-warmth vs. low-warmth animals for high-competent but not for low-competent animals. However, this difference in empathy choice between high- and low-warmth preferences within competence was not replicated in study 2, and our 2 × 2 analyses in both studies indicated no interactions between competence and warmth.