Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: Effects of empathy and responsibility in Muslim leaders’ mediated responses to extremist attacks

Muslim American leaders are often called upon to publicly respond to violent attacks carried out by Muslim extremists. Yet it is unclear what types of responses are most likely to satisfy non-Muslim Americans and ultimately improve attitudes toward Muslim Americans as a group. In three experiments, we examined how expressions of empathy and responsibility within Muslim leaders’ mediated responses to extremism affect response satisfaction. We did so immediately after real terrorism incidents carried out internationally (Study 1) and domestically (Study 2), as well as within a controlled fictional incident (Study 3). Across studies, expressing (vs. not expressing) empathy decreased the perception that the issued statement was motivated by external pressure, which was associated with (a) increased response satisfaction and trust in Muslim Americans and (b) decreased perceptions that Muslim Americans were collectively responsible for the incident. In contrast, accepting (vs. denying) responsibility increased the perception that the response was issued out of a sense of collective guilt, which, in Study 3, led to (a) decreased response satisfaction and trust in Muslims and (b) increased Muslim collective responsibility. These findings illustrate the perilous task facing group leaders who use the media to publicly respond to actions of extremist ingroup members.