Using performance art to promote intergroup prosociality by cultivating the belief that empathy is unlimited

The study addresses why people show lower empathy toward outgroup versus ingroup members and tests whether changing beliefs about the nature of empathy can reduce this intergroup empathy bias. The authors propose that people often treat empathy as a scarce resource, which fosters zero-sum thinking (empathizing with outgroup members seems to come at the expense of the ingroup). They hypothesize that strengthening the belief that empathy is an unlimited resource will increase outgroup empathy and prosociality, thereby attenuating intergroup bias. Given concerns about external validity, the research examines this mechanism using both lab and field methods, including performance art as a vehicle for intervention and science outreach across diverse intergroup contexts (political, ethnic, national, religious).

The paper situates its hypothesis within resource theories and lay theories of psychological capacities. While resource depletion models suggest limited self-regulatory resources, other work shows self-regulation can be sustained or enhanced by beliefs and incentives. Beliefs about resource capacity shape behavior: believing a capacity is limited promotes sparing use, whereas believing it is unlimited promotes generous use. Empathy is commonly assumed to be limited due to cognitive and emotional costs, with evidence of trade-offs (e.g., workplace empathy associated with family exhaustion) and compassion fatigue. However, people who believe empathy is unlimited report less empathy fatigue and lower burnout than those with fixed mindsets. Prior intergroup empathy research has highlighted situational factors (attributions, identifiability, perceived costs, group norms) and lay theories about malleability (fixed vs growth). The current work introduces a distinct belief—empathy-as-resource (limited vs unlimited)—as a mechanism affecting the distribution of empathy between in- and outgroups. It also discusses zero-sum beliefs and scarcity contexts that can inhibit prosocial responses even when empathy increases.

Six studies (n = 2118) combined correlational, experimental, and field methods, including performance-art-based interventions. Key measures included beliefs about empathy as an unlimited resource (multi-item scales), empathic reactions (empathy, sympathy, compassion ratings), support for prosocial actions, and observed empathic behaviors in face-to-face interactions. - Pilot Study (Israel; teenagers from Jewish Secular, Jewish Religious, Arab groups): Cross-sectional survey assessed social identity, empathy toward multiple ingroups/outgroups, and belief that empathy is unlimited (1–6 scales). Analyses computed Pearson correlations between belief and empathic sentiments toward targets. - Study 1 (USA; MTurk; liberals vs conservatives; two-wave): Wave 1 assessed political ideology and belief that empathy is unlimited. Wave 2 (one week later) randomly assigned participants to read an empathy-inducing article about injured ingroup or outgroup partisans. Participants rated prosocial emotions (1–7). Two-way ANOVA tested condition (ingroup vs outgroup) and moderation by empathy-belief. - Study 2 (USA; preregistered; MTurk): Random assignment to manipulation framing empathy as limited vs unlimited, followed by four empathy-inducing testimonies (real Syrian refugee stories; presentation order counterbalanced). After each, participants rated empathy (1–7). Manipulation check assessed belief about empathy. Repeated-measures ANOVA tested condition effects across testimonies. - Study 3 (Israel; preregistered): Random assignment to limited, unlimited, or control (no information) conditions, then two empathy-inducing articles about a Jewish (ingroup) and an Arab (outgroup) family (issue type and order counterbalanced). Measures: empathy (multi-item indices) and support for prosocial actions (e.g., policy support, volunteer assistance). Manipulation check measured empathy-belief. RM-ANOVA tested Target (ingroup vs outgroup) × Condition; mediation analysis (PROCESS Model 4) tested whether intergroup empathy bias mediated effects on prosocial support bias. - Study 4 (USA; preregistered; performance-experiment in Chicago): Audience participants randomly assigned to limited or unlimited conditions via scripted, actor-delivered interviews in an “immigration booth” theatre set. Real refugee stories were used. After manipulation, participants rated empathy across four testimonies. Manipulation check included belief scale. RM-ANOVA assessed condition and Testimony Order × Condition. - Study 5 (Israel; performance-experiment in Jerusalem art festival): Israeli Jewish participants randomly assigned to an experimental (unlimited) or control condition. Actors (Jewish and Arab) delivered personal 3-min empathy-inducing stories in 1:1 cabins. Participants then chose an interpersonal behavior (no touch/handshake/hug) and rated empathy for both an ingroup and an outgroup actor (order counterbalanced). Debriefing and science outreach followed. Manipulation check assessed empathy-belief. Analyses included RM-ANOVA for Target × Condition on empathy and McNemar’s chi-square tests for within-participant differences in empathic behavior selection toward ingroup vs outgroup across conditions. Across studies, attention checks, preregistrations, counterbalancing, and manipulation checks were employed. Field studies used trained actors for standardized delivery and embedded debriefings to communicate scientific findings to the public.

- Pilot Study: Belief that empathy is unlimited positively correlated with empathetic sentiments toward multiple groups. For example, correlations with outgroup composites were r ≈ 0.16–0.25 across Jewish Secular, Jewish Religious, and Arab samples (all p < 0.01 to p < 0.001 for composites). Several target-specific correlations were significant (e.g., Arabs: r = 0.183 in Jewish Secular sample, p < 0.001; Ultra-Orthodox Jews: r ≈ 0.15–0.23 across samples, p ≤ 0.041). - Study 1 (USA politics): Significant Condition × Belief interaction (b = −0.41, SE = 0.17, t(178) = 2.40, p = 0.017; 95% CI [0.074, 0.76]). Participants endorsing more limited-empathy beliefs showed stronger intergroup empathy bias (t(178) = −3.52, p < 0.001; 95% CI [−1.16, −0.45]). Those believing empathy is less limited showed no ingroup–outgroup difference (t(178) = 0.03, p = 0.89). Overall mean empathy was higher to outgroup targets in the manipulation context (M = 5.10) than ingroup (M = 4.60), moderated by belief. - Study 2 (USA, Syrian refugees): Manipulation check: unlimited > limited (M = 4.92 vs 3.39), p < 0.001, d ≈ 0.58. RM-ANOVA showed a significant main effect of condition on empathy, F(1,198) = 9.73, p = 0.003, d = 0.423; participants in the unlimited condition reported greater empathy toward refugees (M = 5.82, SD = 1.43) than those in the limited condition (M = 5.18, SD = 1.60). Effects were consistent across testimony order. - Study 3 (Israel; ingroup vs outgroup families): Intergroup empathy bias attenuated in the unlimited condition due to increased outgroup empathy (unlimited vs control, p = 0.047; unlimited vs limited, p = 0.028) without reducing ingroup empathy (ps ≥ 0.53). Prosocial support showed a Target × Condition interaction, F(2,147) = 4.76, p = 0.01, d = 0.51: significant ingroup-favoring bias in limited and control conditions (ps ≤ 0.002), no bias in unlimited (p = 0.72). Mediation: Intergroup empathy bias mediated the effect of condition on prosocial support bias; indirect effect significant (p < 0.001), with the direct effect reduced and becoming non-significant when empathy bias was included. - Study 4 (USA performance field study; Syrian refugees): Manipulation check: t(106) = −2.35, p = 0.02, d = 0.45 (unlimited > limited). Empathy main effect: F(1,106) = 6.34, p = 0.03, d = 0.49; unlimited condition M = 6.08 (SD = 1.30) vs limited M = 5.50 (SD = 1.25). Testimony Order × Condition interaction: F(1,106) = 3.97, p = 0.008, d = 0.39; empathy remained stable across stories in the unlimited condition but declined across stories in the limited condition. - Study 5 (Israel performance field study; Jewish–Arab encounters): Manipulation check: t(170) = −2.21, p = 0.028, d = −0.34 (unlimited perceived empathy as less limited than control). Empathy Target × Condition interaction: F(1,170) = 5.09, p = 0.025, d = 0.35; control showed significant ingroup > outgroup empathy (p < 0.001), unlimited showed no difference (p = 0.344). Behavioral choice (interpersonal touch): control participants more often chose the most empathic behavior (hug) toward ingroup vs outgroup (p < 0.001), whereas unlimited participants showed no ingroup–outgroup difference (p = 1; McNemar’s test). Overall: Across six studies and diverse contexts, endorsing or inducing the belief that empathy is unlimited consistently increased outgroup empathy and reduced intergroup empathy bias. In experiments, effects extended to greater support for prosocial actions toward outgroups and to more egalitarian empathic behavior in face-to-face interactions.

Findings support the hypothesis that intergroup empathy bias is partly driven by the belief that empathy is a limited resource, which fosters zero-sum reasoning. Strengthening the belief that empathy is unlimited reduces concerns about depriving the ingroup and increases empathy toward outgroups without diminishing empathy toward ingroups. Results generalized across political (liberals vs conservatives), national (US citizens vs Syrian refugees), and ethnic/religious (Jews vs Arabs; various Jewish subgroups) contexts. The work augments prior literature that focused on target perceptions, costs, and social norms, and distinguishes empathy-as-resource beliefs from malleability mindsets by highlighting distributional, zero-sum concerns rather than trait change. From an applied standpoint, conveying a general, context-independent message that empathy is unlimited may avoid resistance typical of interventions targeting specific rival groups. Embedding the intervention within participatory performance art provided high external validity, facilitated intergroup contact, and allowed science outreach to broader audiences.

This research demonstrates that cultivating the belief that empathy is an unlimited resource reduces intergroup empathy bias, increases outgroup-directed empathy, promotes support for prosocial actions toward outgroups, and fosters unbiased empathic behaviors in real-world interactions. The interdisciplinary performance-experiment approach illustrates how art can effectively disseminate psychological insights and promote social change. Future research should assess the durability of effects over time, test the intervention with younger populations, examine its impact in naturalistic (less self-selected) settings, and explore boundary conditions in strongly zero-sum contexts or when prosocial actions are objectively costly.

- External validity and sampling: Field interventions were embedded in exhibitions/festivals with some self-selection, which may differ from spontaneous, natural intergroup interactions. - Durability: Studies assessed immediate outcomes; long-term maintenance of belief change and behavioral effects remains unknown. - Population: Primarily adult samples; generalizability to children/adolescents (when group preferences and prejudice develop) is untested. - Boundary conditions: In zero-sum contexts (e.g., sports, direct competition) or when helping is materially costly (e.g., money, time), increased empathy may not translate into prosocial action. If outgroup suffering benefits the ingroup, empathy increases may be constrained by competing motives. - Measurement constraints: Some reported statistics suggest small-to-moderate effects; the intervention’s practical impact in high-stakes settings requires further evaluation.