I found this article here at Signs and Things, which I am glad because you need to register (and possibly pay) to read it at nytimes.com. Here is a snip, and then you can jump here to read the rest.
Published: May 10, 2007
NY TimesFinally, we’re beginning to understand what it would take to galvanize
President Bush, other leaders and the American public to respond to the
genocide in Sudan: a suffering puppy with big eyes and floppy ears.That’s the implication of a series of studies by psychologists trying to
understand why people – good, conscientious people – aren’t moved by
genocide or famines. Time and again, we’ve seen that the human conscience
just isn’t pricked by mass suffering, while an individual child (or puppy)
in distress causes our hearts to flutter.In one experiment, psychologists asked ordinary citizens to contribute $5
to alleviate hunger abroad. In one version, the money would go to a particular
girl, Rokia, a 7-year-old in Mali; in another, to 21 million hungry
Africans; in a third, to Rokia – but she was presented as a victim of a
larger tapestry of global hunger.Not surprisingly, people were less likely to give to anonymous millions
than to Rokia. But they were also less willing to give in the third scenario, in
which Rokia’s suffering was presented as part of a broader pattern.
Link to article here.
But you’ll need to register.











