ArticlePDF Available

Social Identification Structures the Effects of Perspective Taking

Authors:
Mark Tarrant at University of Exeter
Mark Tarrant
Raff Calitri at University of Exeter
Raff Calitri
Dale Weston at University of Exeter
Dale Weston
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract

Researchers who study perspective taking are generally optimistic about the potential for interventions to improve intergroup perceptions. The current research provides new insight into the conditions that frame the intergroup outcomes of perspective taking. The results show that the effects of perspective taking are not always positive but depend on perspective takers' degree of identification with the in-group. In two experiments, we demonstrated that adopting the perspective of an out-group member can have damaging effects on intergroup perceptions among group members who are highly identified with the in-group. Specifically, compared with less committed members, those who identified highly with the in-group used a greater number of negative traits to describe the out-group following perspective taking. Such perspective taking also led participants with high in-group identification to judge the out-group less favorably. Understanding how social identity concerns frame the outcome of perspective taking is crucial to its effective employment in intergroup-relations programs.
Content uploaded by Raff Calitri
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Raff Calitri on Feb 23, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
UNCORRECTED PROOF

  !! !"#$
% $ 
!%
! &'(# !&)
 
!%
! &'(# !&)
*!
(# !&)
* +',-.
&/ ! !"#$'!&' "
0 0! ! 0/!!"" 1& 234443++3+,,56
1&0! 0! 02670#/!)" !!0!
"1 0!00 !!! &0!0''
' 0" 807*0$9!!#  0 0"
88!  # !0! 7
 !"% $ '!%:! &'
(# !&) ') ';5+(788 $7 <"877$
UNCORRECTED PROOF
1! 
! 0" !"#$! &"8!10" 
 #!8" #  "" "!70  ! 0" #!/
!00!0 80  "8!" !"#$7
!!0/00!" !"#$ /&!"!#1'!'
""" !"#$ != /003 "7/
)" 8!/8! 0"0" !"#3 "881 
0#8!  "" "! 00&3 "
881 !7"&'8" !!88881 !'00 !!
  81 # !! 103 "/" !"#
$7 !"#$!00 !>03 "!!
# 1&7( !0!&8"!" !"#$!
 !#8"&8  " !"  8!7
UNCORRECTED PROOF
  !! !"#$
/380" >   !0
 """0" !"#3 "881 !0
#"88 0 8!  "" "!277'?!'& "'
 839!7'5--@A#'  '/ 7'+44,A!$&:
%!$/B'+444A!'0 !':'+44.67!""
"! !'" !"#$0!8 !  
   " !"  8!!0!# !& 2 &' !'
:'+44@67/# '!0#!   &!&!8&# 
#!!2$: '+44-670!1! #'0 /0  ! 0
!0/0" !"#$ !" !"#$ !=!3! #10# 
2"&' !':?B 8'+44CA!$&'%)'':*0'+44DA
 E!0'F8 '!0 '0/ B':/B '+455A!!  :
!$'+44-6/ !! B0!" !"#$7!
!!!8 )8/02  /086" !"#$
8011G80#18 " !7
* H!00!8" !!1&!0" 0
08" !"#$"!"" !"#$ !=/ !0"
/00 3 "7*)80!" !"#$ "881 !
/0# &0  "!&0888G G/00
3 "7*" "!0 00&3 "881 !'"0
" !"#3 "881 /11   "" "!7
0 '/" 0" !"#$/1$ 00 !
08" #03 "#&7
UNCORRECTED PROOF
#" " ! 0 ! 0'/ /" 00! &
  " !/ $00!!1!0! "881 !0"!!!
0 0/00"" /00!/ 2>:  '5-DCA  '
'$!'0 ':*0 '5-D@67 0!&
"" 0!0 "881 ! 8#! "!#!8
 0 / "!2!  '5---67/# '1!0 ! 8
#!03 "'00& "881 ! !"&
 #10#/&!0! #0!28 !'" !':!>'+44+67
0 !8&" #3 "!# 8!'10&
$! !!&/0! 80!
 03 "2 !"'':'+44CA9'" !':
!8!'+44,67
*0" #! ! 00! 0!)8  "8!
" !"#$277'3 "0"A" > 6'0!0!&"&
10#0#0!& 
" !"#$ !=/!!2& :0'+44D670!
" !"#$8& B""/00$1  " !
" 8 &as group members' 0 0as individuals /0>!0""0# "
881 !0"!7""  0!!!8! 8 ! 0!0/0""
 8 $&10#/&!0! "!#!&/00
&!!8" /0!!28'IB 1&'*1!':
 >'+44.67 ')!/0 !!&! &
0 277'1&18"00 83 "881 !6'
" !"#$ !""  03 "8 "881 !8!
UNCORRECTED PROOF
 1" 03 "2%'! ' ':/8'
+44DAJ1'!>':" !'+44-67
0  ! 0/)80!" !"#$
  "" "!K# &&L ")!277'# "'
&67*!!0/0!&!!'0!
! "3 "881 =!" !"#/18 1&3
 "7/ !1"  &8#1&0
! "!#8 03 "28 !:#>!/>$'5--@670!'
" !"#$801)"0# &"!#!H! /
 !=" "!03 "' " #! ! 0277'?!
7'5--@A!$&:%!$/B'+44467
?& !'/" 0" !"#$/!# 
800 !7!!" > 8!!0!0
883 "&82  '#'!!'?08':!'
5--.60#!0/08"!0 "881 !=  "" "! 
)" 1&00 !!0 !&08
 88 #!/ !3 "!2 !"7'+44CA !&:
'+44467*" 0!8  /1!0/1&00 !
/00&3 "" !"#$7"&'/" 0
" !"#$/00 !)" !!##0
3 "7
Experiment 1
Method
? 180!&'# !&!!2NM5+@,58!'DC
8!AMM+47,N& !'SDM,744& !6/ !$ 80 
UNCORRECTED PROOF
881 !0"0 # !& "2(# !&670!0!&
/! 0  !1& 8" "!00!&/!10 # !&
 "=!" "!0 ! "!7 "!0 " 0 
/003 "!0 8!" 88 !' $!'
:/ $ $25---77'K10!# !&LA5M! &! '@
M! & 'OM7D567?!0"  !$&%!$/B
2+4446'" "!/ 0" !/0"0 "0! 83
 "# !&2(# !&!!)6#/8!/ !0 
"  "01K&0L0!#7 "!0" !"#
$/ ! #&$0" !"#0 /0
/ 0 "  "0K0 0&"&0!!0!'!&/ 08L7
 " "! #0!! 70" "  !" !
" !" "!="  "0!!8"0$" !"#
$'/0" "!)"8"&8  !" !" !0
" !"#$00!0 27!$&:'
+44,67!8!!!!0 /000& $0" !"#
03 " 25MA@M) 8&#7'+44,6! #!
!8"0$7
Dependent measures: "!/ " !/0 "!# !
2 B' '/!'" 6 # !2 1'1!'
!#'8&6!$0!0&! ""03
 "2! !"'*!0':/!'+44C67  1! /!
1&!" &!88081 "!## !" "!
!!03 "7
Results
UNCORRECTED PROOF
" "/! 8# 80&!!1!0&/ 
&0 0" !"#$!$7 808"=!
#!!'" "!0" !"#$!00 " " 
" !" !0 "  "0!2MM@7@@'SDMN7D-6 "   
 " !"#$2MM,7CN'SDM57.D60" "!0 
2M M7@N'SD M+7,C:M M.7@C'SDM57., !"#&F25'5++6M@,7C+'
pP745'ηp2M7.D :F25'5+56M5+7C,'pP745'ηp2M754673 "
H&0!!2p!Q7N567
% 0  0  !!&!!/!!!0!&
" !7 !"#$/!88&"   &087
 !"#$28 6/  0 !!"
0 /! 0!!"7!" !"#$)
 /!1! #0#3 "  1!
215678"!"&!!0'03" !"# 
'0 /! !0"1/  1'
M
374.' t25++6M37+.'p M7D+7/# '!""  " '" "! 1
!&8 # !03 "!3 " !'
M7..'t25++6M+7N.'p P74N2 5'"" "670! 0
"!#  1!0#!2p!Q7.+67
Experiment 2
)" 858! 0 #&!'# &&  "
)'" !"#$!# 8!8 "881 !7
 "" " "!=  1!03
" !"# 7/# '/00&"0" !"#03
 "881 '" "!!!8 #  1!03 "
UNCORRECTED PROOF
!/0!3 " !7)" 8+/!0
1!!!0!   ")2&6/
8"" "!= "  !0!0!
# 17*!1  !3 " !7
Method
30 ? !0# !&!!" "0!&2+.8!'@@
8!A MM5D7D5'SDM57@,67!&5'!&/!8!1&
!$" "! 80 3 "881 !0"2&61&
 80800!& 0! "=!" "!0 !7
/!8"!9'" !'%!=!25--@6
"   H " "!/00 0&  ! /0
!!8!103 "2? 6!8$!"!# 
#!"!0 &70/! 1&" !
" "!/08 &"!#!8!277'K '$1
? !0L6# &#!8!277'K? !0""0#0
88/000 L67# !&'//! 1&" !
8 &#277'K? !0/0 !8!0/! "L6
# &"!#!8!277'K 8!0/8&!'1? !0!
 8&&L67 "!/ )"8  & !0
8 !8!0'0 1&08 00&/ 
00 / ! !"#&297'5--@67081 "!## !!
#!8!" "! /00!0
8"0$7
 !"#$/!8"/)" 85'" 
 ")203 " /! 867!/!8"0
UNCORRECTED PROOF
  1!$ 8)" 85'" "!/ !$ " 0/
# 1& # 1&0&>03 "25MA54M) 8&7
$'J':!!!'5--.67
Results
" "/ &0 0" !"#$!$
/!0   8# 80&!!7!!/008"'
" "!000 /08 "!#!8!
103 "2MM,7.,'SDM7D+600&#!8!2MM7+D'
SDM7C5AF25'-@6M.-C744'pP745'ηp2M7D46'" "!0/
 /08 #!8!2MM,7+@'SDM57+N6
0"!#!8!2M M574+'SDM7-4AF25'-@6M+,@7-4'pP745'ηp2M7@+67
0" !"#$8"/!!!!!7 "!0
" !"#$!00 " " " !" !0 
"  "0!2MM-7@C'SDMN7@.6'!3 "    " !"#3
$2MM,7C,'SDM57N,6'0" "!0 2MM7N,'SDM
+7@.:MM.7.N'SDM57C@ !"#&'F25'-N6M54+7C@'pP745'ηp2M7N+:F25'
-N6M5N7D.'pP745'ηp2 M75,670!!/ H1&2p!
Q7,467
 !"#$/ 88&8 
"   &8 0  0  !!87)& "
)" 85'0 /!!" !"#$) 
0#3 "  1!215670/ !
 081 # !0&!!03 "03
" !"# '
M37++'t2-N6M37,N'p M7NN7/# '!" '
00 !!!!&8 # !03 "0
UNCORRECTED PROOF
/ ! " !"#$'
M7-.'t2-N6M+7NN'p M7452 5'/ 
"670! 0"!#  1!0#!2p!
Q75-67
" !"#$) /!!103
 "# 1&8! 215600 !)" !!!&!!
# 13 ">80" !"#$8" 0
 
M357@4't2-N6M3+7C@'p P74573 "# 1&>8!
 1/" !"#$ ! / !'
M7.-'t2-N6M7C+'p M7N,7
Discussion
"=! !"!!  ""08 !0"1&!&
 !2>:  '5-DC6'00 ! !"&8#
! "!#!&297'+44,A !"7'+44C67*0 "
881 !8"&&" ! !)!/0 !&
! &0 2% '? !81':? '+454' '? !81'
*  ':*!'" !!6' !8! 0!&!  !
0!" !"#$# #&!'# &&  "
)!70& "881 !0  ! 0)" !!8 
#3 "" "! "0" !"#3 "
881 '!" 7"&'8" / !'00 !!
  81 # !! 103 "!/0/
" !"#$7)" 8+'" !"#$00 !!
>03 "!!# 1&7
UNCORRECTED PROOF
#!!0!# !&  " "!"0
" !"#3 "881 !7/# '!0#!08!#!8&""
8!#!/0  &"!#& / 00 
  " " !!2$: '+44-67 ""/0 !
 " "!0#!8& 80 #!!7 0"!
1!0&0 !&!#!!2 !"7'+44C6' #!
 00 " !'/0 !"&!!#!00 !'8&
&1$ #3 "" "!78" 
! 0'0'!0" !"#$#!80/ $1!  "
881 !/0 00&/003 "/0!  "
!& !$&87
 3 "881 ! 3 "=!" !"#!
#&""/&" 81   " !'# !!!
0#" #8" !""  0!0H70  ! 0" #!
#1 !0!0 8" !"#$!
000!08" $" !"#$ !=/ !0"/00 3
 "7 !8 "881 !'" !"#$0!#!'
/01$ !0!/&0 8&1! !8!H!
   " !70   ! 0'0  '!#"/&!
/0001!" !"#$10 !!  "
881 !7( !08" !"#$ !&!
  B0!0H=!"7
UNCORRECTED PROOF
 !
?!'77'& "'%77' 839!'7'80'797'%0 '77'
? '77'725--@678"0&! 881 
!8B "8" #!/ 0 "RJournal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72'54N355D7
54755@@S45,C5C@4++.@C,@7
 !"'797'77'772+44C67 B!1 "
 " #0 ! 888 "!7
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32'+.43+,.7
54755@@S45,C5C@+4N+D4-4D7
 !"'797'*!0'97':/!'%72+44C67 !! B88
 ")!7Personality and Social Psychology, 32'5+4,35+5D7
54755@@S45,C5C@+4C+D-,4-
#'977'  '%7'/ '77'  '77'90!'977'!!!'
7%7'$'?7%7': !'772+44,67 !"#" >
!880!8!7Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30'5N.@35N,-754755@@S45,C5C@4,+@55@@7
8'%7'IB 1&'7I7'*1!'7': >'72+44.67
 B  !0"81 550  !$!7
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29'55+35+.7
54755@@S45,C5C@+4.+NC-+.7
8 !'7' $!'7':/ $ $'9725---673 B'
8880 "!!3!8! 1!!"!
UNCORRECTED PROOF
!&7European Journal of Social Psychology, 28'.@53.-D7
547544+S2654--34--+25---4.S4N6+-+S.P.@53
9-.+Q.747A+3(7
8 !'7'" !'7':!>'?72+44+67!&7Annual Review
of Psychology, 53'5C535DC7
8 !'7:>!/>$'*725--@67&!# !!!"" !
0! "3###&88! !7
Social Psychology Quarterly, 60'+3CN7547+.4@S+@D@4557
"&'7' !'7%7':?B 8'%772+44C67*0" !"#$
 !!$#!8! 7Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 91'D@+3DD-754754.@S44++3.N5,7-57N7D@+7
!$&'77:'72+44,670!" !"#3$" >0
8  !3#7Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30'N-,3C4,754755@@S45,C5C@+4.+C+D4+7
!$&'77'%)'*7*7''7':*0'97?72+44D67*0&"&!
!00& ""0 !" !"#3$
8"0&!7Psychological Science, 19'.@D3.D,7
5475555S>75,C@3-+D47+44D74+4-C7)7
!$&'77':%!$/B'7?72+44467 !"#$ !
! &")" !!'! &"!!1&3 "# !87
9 Personality and Social Psychology, 78'@4D3@+,754.@SS44++3
.N5,7@D7.7@4D
  '77'#'977'!!'77'?08'?77':!'%77
25--.67088 "&8 B0
  "1!7*7 1:%7/!2!76'European
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Review of social Psychology, 4'53+C754754D4S5,@-+@@-.,.44444,7
$'7'J'%77':!!!'7%725--.67!!!!0!  
" >!0!!/ 08!)!7Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65'554N3555D754754.@S44++3
.N5,7CN7C7554N7
 !&'%7:'%772+444671 " !8" !08
  " 88 "&8!" >
7Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26'+,+3+NC7
54755@@S45,CC5C@+44+C,4547
& '7':0'7*72+44D678 3 " !7European Review
of Social Psychology, 19'DC35+N754754D4S54,C.+D4D4+4@-@.D7
9'97'" !'7':%!'725--@67 0  "
 0 " 8!7European Journal of Social
Psychology, 27'C4.3C4-7547544+S2654--34--+25--@4-S546+@7N
PC4.39D5CR.747A+3?7
9'97'" !'7':!8!'72+44,67  "!#!!
 83&#!7Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 86'DC+3D@-754754.@S44++3.N5,7DC7C7DC+
%'7'! '977' '7':/8'972+44D670 00 
&!*08> & "881 !$#10
 "7Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11',N53,@47
54755@@S5.CD,.4+4D4-N,447
% '7%7'? !81'77':? '%772+45467%#!0
>!! !7Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36'@CD3@@-7
54755@@S45,C5C@+54.@44.57
UNCORRECTED PROOF
$'77: '772+44-67 > *0/ $!R #/
!!!!8 ! 0" 7Annual Review of Psychology, 60'..-3
.C@754755,CS 7"!&07C47554@4@75C.C4@
 &'77' !'7%7':'772+44@67# !& 
0 &" 7Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
80'+@3N475475.,DS4-C.5@-4C;55D.-@
>'7:  '97725-DC67 #0 &  "77
* 0:*77!2!76'Social psychology of intergroup
relations
2""7+3+,670!37547545CS44CN3+C4524N6.@44N3N
 '%7'? !81'77'*  '7':*!'72" !!67&
" "!  =!8 /0/7Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology7547545CS>7>!"7+455754745@7
 E!0'7'F8 '97'!0 '77'0/ B'7':/B '7%7
2+45567 !"#$!8!# 88#1  !
!*0"!0""T!!0!0"!/$
/  8!7Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101'@@53
@-4754754.@S44+.D457
  '97725---678 !!! ! 0!&!3
 B0 !778 !'7" !':?7!>2!76'Social
identity: Context, commitment, content2""7C3.,67) ?$/7
  '977''%77'$!'797'0 '77':*0 '%7725-D@67
Rediscoveringthe social group: A self-categorization theory7
) ?$/7
!'77'0 !'7?7':'%772+44.67 !"#$
UNCORRECTED PROOF
" > 08 8"0& !!
 1!7European Journal of Social Psychology, 33',NN3,@+7
547544+S>!"75C.7
  '977':!$'7972+44-67"&01! R !
8"0&  " 7Psychological Science, 20'5-53
5-@7U5475555S>75,C@3-+D47+44-74++CN7)7
J1'7!>'?7':" !'72+44-67/" !"#3$0"!0 !
 "31!! "7Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, 12'C53@D754755@@S5.CD,.4+4D4-D@@@7
UNCORRECTED PROOF
 "
Figure 17#3 "  1!!" !"#$
2"" ")" 85A/ ")" 8+67 
  ! !0/7
UNCORRECTED PROOF
)" 85
474
47N
574
57N
0 

 #3   "   1!
35 V5
)" 8+
■ =  !"#$WM 
UNCORRECTED PROOF
474
47N
574
57N
+74
+7N
0 

 #3   "   1 !
35 V5
157
Effects of perspective taking and group identification on out-group trait attributions
(Experiments 1 & 2) and out-group favorability (Experiment 2).
XM! B0# 101$/! 7Y+
+0 8# 01$0# 01$'
!"#&AZpP74N7
UNCORRECTED PROOF
)" 85 )" 8+
?$S# 1!  Y++X Y++X
#3 "  1!
5%! 74+ 74+
 !"#$ 374+ 74,
 75, 75,
+  74.Z 74NZ 74NZ 74@Z
 !"#$) 75DZ 7++Z
!#3 "  1!
5%! 745 745
 !"#$ 74+ 3755
 74- 74+
+  744 745 74+ 74.
 !"#$) 74. 375.
3 "# 1& !
5%! 74+
 !"#$ 375,
 74+
+  74NZ 74@Z
 !"#$) 37+.Z
... Condition. These results are contrary to our hypotheses and outcomes of some field studies of 602 perspective focused interventions (e.g., Galinsky et al., 2005;Ku et al., 2015), However, these 603 results are consistent with prior studies demonstrating that perspective focused interventions can 604 have heterogenous effects in some cases (Tarrant et al., 2012) and negative effects in others 605 (Epley et al., 2006;Eyal et al., 2018;Vorauer et al., 2009;Vorauer & Quesnel, 2013). 606 607 ...
Seeing isn't believing? Mixed effects of a perspective-getting intervention to improve mentoring relationships for science doctoral students
Preprint
  • Oct 2024
Science doctoral students can experience negative interactions with faculty mentors and internalize these experiences, potentially leading to self-blame and undermining their research self-efficacy. Helping students perceive these interactions adaptively may protect their research self-efficacy and maintain functional mentoring relationships. We conducted a pre-registered, longitudinal field experiment of a novel perspective-getting intervention combined with attribution retraining to help students avoid self-blame and preserve research self-efficacy. Science doctoral students ( n = 155) were randomly assigned to read about mentor perspectives on negative interactions (i.e., Perspective-getting Condition) or about mentoring with no mentor perspective (i.e., control condition). Contrary to our hypotheses, we found no main effects of the intervention on students’ self-blame or research self-efficacy. However, for students with lower pre-intervention mentorship relationship satisfaction, the intervention preserved research self-efficacy six months later. This study provides evidence that perspective getting may be protective for students who are most in need of relationship intervention. Educational Relevance and Implications Statement Effective mentoring relationships are fundamental for promoting the success of doctoral students in science, yet not all mentoring relationships are high quality. This study assessed the effectiveness of a brief perspective-getting intervention (where students are given the perspective of what it is like to be a research mentor) that aimed to protect science doctoral students from blaming themselves for negative interactions with faculty mentors and maintain their research self-efficacy. Results showed that on average across all students, the intervention did not affect students’ self-blame for negative interactions or their research self-efficacy. However, the intervention did help students with less satisfying mentoring relationships maintain their self-efficacy. Thus, perspective-getting shows some promise for protecting science doctoral students from harm that can be caused by negative interactions with faculty mentors.
View
... As long as the learning task focuses on only one parent, there will always be individuals in the intended target group who are more similar to the parent (in terms of gender or the parenting role) than others. It is possible that similarity or identification with the person whose perspective is being taken could influence the outcome measures (Tarrant et al., 2012). In this study, however, the results for willingness to take another perspective did not differ by gender. ...
“If I were the mother…”: fostering perspective taking in German teacher education
Article
Full-text available
  • Jun 2024
Higher perspective taking skills are associated with better social functioning and improved social relationships. Generally, teachers are willing to take the perspective of their students, but it is unclear whether the same is true for the perspective of parents. As communication and conflicts with parents are pervasive, the motivation and willingness to adopt the perspective of parents in counseling situations should be promoted during university teacher training. Therefore, we investigated the promotion of perspective taking among teachers in training and focused mainly on perspective taking toward parents. We developed a case-based learning task in which teachers in training from Freie Universität Berlin ( N = 515) prepared for a fictitious upcoming consultation with a mother about her son. Because it is unclear if direct instruction for perspective taking is necessary in order to promote it, we also used indirect instruction to investigate whether preparing for the consultation under these instructions fostered the willingness to adopt the perspective of students and parents. In the direct instruction participants were directly told to take the perspective of the fictitious mother when evaluating and developing formulations for the consultation. The indirect instruction did not mention the concept of perspective taking but asked participants to focus on the comprehensibility of the formulations. We obtained three measures: the willingness to take a perspective, the attitude toward another person, and the emotional and empathic language used in written texts. With our main result we demonstrated that the willingness to adopt the perspective of both students and parents could be significantly promoted by both instructions. We further demonstrated that a higher willingness to take another’s perspective is associated with a more positive attitude toward the mother, as well as increased positive emotions and empathic concern. Additionally, we replicated results of a previous study showing a generally higher willingness to take the student perspective prior to the intervention. Results are discussed regarding the benefits of promoting perspective taking, especially toward parents, in teacher education.
View
... Previous studies have indicated that ingroup identification can impede the prejudice reduction process in much the same way that outgroup identification can facilitate it (e.g., Joyce & Harwood, 2014;Ortiz & Harwood, 2007), so it stands to reason that viewers' distinct political group identities may pose an obstacle. This concern is supported by research that suggests that adopting the perspective of an out-group member can have paradoxical effects when identification with one's in-group is strong, resulting in more negative evaluations (Tarrant et al., 2012). In light of the potential for the viewer's political identity to challenge the relationship between cross-party identification and inter-party prejudice, we hypothesize that: H2: Political affiliation moderates the relationship between identification and affective polarization such that greater identification with the out-party character is a negative predictor of affective polarization. ...
View
... At the same time, some studies found that PT can be ineffective or even backfire and promote more hostile outgroup attitudes under certain conditions (Nyúl, Farag o, & Kende, 2020;Sassenrath, Hodges, & Pfattheicher, 2016;Todd & Galinsky, 2014). For instance, when perspective-takers glorify their ingroup (Berndsen, Thomas, & Pedersen, 2018), or become concerned about being negatively judged (Vorauer & Sasaki, 2009), or when those who strongly identify with their group feel that their identity is being threatened by PT (Mallett, Huntsinger, Sinclair, & Swim, 2008;Tarrant, Calitri, & Weston, 2012;Zebel, Doosje, & Spears, 2009). PT can also backfire when people are asked to take perspective in contexts that contradict their values, for example, when opponents of immigration were asked to take the perspective of immigrants (Klimecki, Vétois, & Sander, 2020). ...
When the shoe does not fit: The role of perspective‐taking orientation in a perspective‐taking prejudice reduction intervention
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2024
We tested how individuals' dispositional perspective‐taking impacts the effectiveness of an intergroup perspective‐taking intervention aimed to reduce anti‐Gypsyism in Hungary. For the intervention, we adapted a role‐playing book with a Roma adolescent protagonist (called the ‘Gypsy Maze’). We predicted that the intervention would be more effective in reducing prejudice for stronger perspective‐takers, compared to weaker, for whom it may even be counterproductive, potentially triggering victim blaming. We conducted a pilot field study among high school students and two experiments among university students ( N = 982). In Study 1, we found that dispositional perspective‐taking qualified the effect of the intervention. While strong perspective‐takers endorsed less prejudice following the intervention versus control conditions, weak perspective‐takers endorsed more. In Study 2, we aimed to replicate Study 1 and test underlying explanations, however, the intervention was ineffective in reducing prejudice among both weak and strong perspective‐takers. These results draw attention to the limits of perspective‐taking interventions and highlight the importance of both societal‐contextual boundaries and personalizing intergroup interventions. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article's Community and Social Impact Statement .
View
... Individuals have a desire to protect their in-group identity (e.g., Tarrant, Calitri, & Weston, 2012;Zebel, Doosje, & Spears, 2009). They do this either by covering bad image with several reasons, making stereotypes of outsiders, or even heightening performance to result in positive image that can increase members esteem and offset previous negative image. ...
Institutional Glorification In Public Organization: Interplay Between Social Identity And Leadership
Article
Full-text available
  • Nov 2023
Public organizations nowadays face two issues. For one, there is a growing demand for good governance to tackle their typical weaknesses. Another, the application of e-service is already imperative, partly as a way to ascertain that a good governance is in place. However, the handling of two issues has been cumbersome. The present study conceives the importance social identity might play, the sense of belonging represented by spirit de corps, driven by lag compared to their private counterpart. For those purposes, it inserts organizational glorification to find out its’ effect on sustainable E-service implementation. It also designs good governance orientation which is of relevance to any public organization. It conceives that good governance orientation could serve as a partial moderator in the relationship between transformative leadership and sustainable e-service implementation, and between institutional glorification and sustainable e-service implementation.
View
... For example, Chinese people who live in collectivistic cultures are found to be better at perspectivetaking than Americans who live in individualistic cultures (Wu and Keysar, 2007). According to related studies, social identity affects how well perspective-taking works and has an interaction effect on out-group favorability ratings (Tarrant et al., 2012). In a study involving participants from 63 countries, Chopik et al. (2017) discovered that participants from individualistic countries performed worse in perspective-taking tasks compared to those from collectivistic countries. ...
The contribution of cultural identity to subjective well-being in collectivist countries: a study in the context of contemporary Chinese culture
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2023
Introduction Though the important effect of cultural identity on subjective well-being is widely acknowledged, the details of how different cultures’ unique features influence well-being remain to be revealed. To address this issue in the context of Chinese culture, the present study investigates whether and how the prominent features of Chinese culture—collectivism and red culture—shape Chinese people’s subjective well-being. Methods The Red Cultural Identity Scale, Subjective Well-Being Scale, Collectivism Scale, and Perspective-Taking Scale were used to assess 1,045 Chinese residents. Results The results showed that red cultural identity positively predicted participants’ subjective well-being through the mediated role of collectivism. Furthermore, perspective-taking was found to moderate the mediating effect of collectivism. Discussion These results demonstrate that the way cultural identity predicts subjective well-being is highly correlated to specific cultural features, e.g., the opinion of values, which was significant in practice with a cross-cultural background.
View
An Updated Examination of Gender Differences in Sexual Harassment Perception: A Meta-Analysis and a Survey Study
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2024
Twenty years ago, Rotundo et al. (2001) meta-analyzed the gender differences in sexual harassment (SH) perception. They found an overall d of 0.30: Women are more likely than men to label certain behaviors as SH. Much has changed since then, including the increased social awareness and the prevalence of SH training. Given the prevalence of SH in the workplace and the importance of SH perception in SH research, we conducted a mixed-methods research program to explore possible changes in the gender gap. In Study 1 (k = 72, N = 27,767), we meta-analyzed the perceptual gender differences to compare with those in Rotundo et al. and examined several moderators of the differences. We found an overall mean d of 0.33, implying a similar gender gap in SH perception as 20 years ago, yet none of the moderators examined in this study showed significant results. In Study 2, we empirically examined gender differences in mean levels of SH perception using the same measurement scales used in two older studies and compared with the differences found in these two studies. We found higher levels of SH perception for both men and women, but no difference in the mean d between men and women, suggesting that no change over time in mean d does not mean no change in SH perception. The implications of our findings are discussed.
View
View
Open-Mindedness: An Integrative Review of Interventions
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2024
Partisan animosity has been growing in the United States and around the world over the past few decades, fueling efforts by researchers and practitioners to help heal the divide. Many studies have been conducted to test interventions that aim to promote open-mindedness; however, these studies have been conducted in disparate literatures that do not always use the same terminology. In this review, we integrate research on open-mindedness in order to facilitate cross-talk and collaboration between disciplines. We review various concepts related to open-mindedness and then offer a conceptual model to help guide the further development of interventions and research to understand open-mindedness. We propose that open-mindedness is multifaceted and dynamic, such that interventions should focus on targeting multiple psychological pathways in order to maximize and sustain their effects. Specifically, we propose that interventions that target cognitive and/or motivational pathways can induce open-mindedness initially. Then, training in emotion regulation and/or social skills can help to sustain and build on open-mindedness once individuals enter into a situation where their beliefs are challenged. We conclude with a discussion of potential future directions for research on open-mindedness interventions.
View
A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2023
This paper posits that universal atomic elements exist that underlie complex cognition. At its core, constructs are born of the dynamics of thinking operating on information. This elemental understanding of the structural underpinnings - and the dynamics between and among the elements - provides insight into the value of thinking and awareness of one’s thinking to everyday life and scientific inquiry. Knowledge of the structural and dynamical properties of human thought leads to generative, purposeful, and predictive cognitive acts that evolve one’s thinking. As a result, our mental models (comprised of information and thinking) of how systems work are better aligned with how they exist in the real world. This alignment yields better solutions, innovation and results. Continued inquiry into the universality of these structural elements has significant potential to advance understanding across a wide variety of academic disciplines. In other words, the study of cognition is deemed synonymous with the evolution of science and knowledge itself.
View
The Common Ingroup Identity Model: Recategorization and the Reduction of Intergroup Bias
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 1993
This chapter introduces the common ingroup identity model as a means of reducing intergroup bias. This model proposes that bias can be reduced by factors that transform members' perceptions of group boundaries from “us” and “them” to a more inclusive “we”. From this perspective, several features specified by the contact hypothesis (e.g. co-operative interaction) facilitate more harmonious intergroup interactions, at least in part, because they contribute to the development of a common ingroup identity. In this chapter, we describe laboratory and field studies that are supportive of the model; we also relate the model to earlier work on aversive racism.
View
Seeing Through Their Eyes: When Majority Group Members Take Collective Action on Behalf of an Outgroup
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2008
We examined majority group members' collective action on behalf of a minority group, focusing on the role of outgroup perspective taking and group-based guilt. As expected, outgroup perspective taking was positively associated with heterosexuals' collective action in response to hate crimes against non-heterosexuals and Whites' action in response to hate crimes against Blacks (Studies 1 and 2). This association was partially mediated by group-based guilt (Studies 2 and 3). We also examined the role of group-based anger; although it directly related to collective action, it did not mediate the association between perspective taking and collective action. Finally, we manipulated outgroup perspective taking to demonstrate its causal role in the subsequent outcomes (Study 3).
View
Assessing the Structure of Prejudicial Attitudes: The Case of Attitudes Toward Homosexuals
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 1993
Two studies assessed the structure of attitudes toward homosexuals. In Study 1, Ss completed measures of stereotypes, symbolic beliefs, and affective associates as well as attitudes toward homosexuals. They also completed the right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) scale. The results reveal that (1) stereotypes did not provide a complete representation of attitudes, (2) RWA was negatively correlated with attitudes toward homosexuals, (3) the relative importance of the predictor variables differed for high and low RWA Ss, and (4) the 3 predictors accounted for more variance in the attitudes of low RWA than of high RWA Ss. Study 2 also included measures of past experiences and perceived value dissimilarity. Results revealed that past experiences significantly added to the prediction of attitudes only for high RWA Ss and that much of the RWA–attitude relation was accounted for by the consideration of symbolic beliefs and perceived value dissimilarity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
View
Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2003
  • EUR J SOC PSYCHOL
This research was designed to examine whether perspective taking promotes improved intergroup attitudes regardless of the extent that stereotypic perceptions of outgroups are endorsed, as well as examining the mechanisms (attributional or empathy related) by which perspective taking motivates improved intergroup attitudes. Participants were presented with an interview segment where an African American interviewee discussed the difficulties experienced as a result of his membership in a negatively stereotyped group. Materials were presented in a 2 (perspective taking: other focused or objective focused) × 2 (target stereotypicality: confirming or disconfirming) between participants design. Findings revealed that the manipulation of target stereotypicality influenced subsequent stereotype endorsement; those exposed to a stereotype confirming target later endorsed more stereotypic perceptions of African Americans than did those exposed to a stereotype disconfirming target. However, perspective taking promoted improved intergroup attitudes irrespective of stereotypicality; those encouraged to adopt the perspective of the target later reported more favourable intergroup attitudes than did those who remained detached and objective listeners. Whereas empathy partially mediated the relation between perspective taking and intergroup attitudes, situational attributions were a stronger and more reliable mediator. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
View
Diversity training: Putting theory into practice
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2007
  • J OCCUP ORGAN PSYCH
Diversity training initiatives are an increasingly large part of many organizations' diversity management portfolio. Little is known, however, about the effectiveness of such initiatives. In this article, we demonstrate how increased adherence to the principles of established social psychological theory can guide and make more coherent the development of diversity initiatives. Likewise, outcomes of diversity training can inform and make more practical social psychological theory and research. In short, both diversity trainers and academics would benefit from greater dialogue, as well as grappling with the tensions that naturally arise when theory and practice collide.
View
Helpful Only in the Abstract?
Article
  • Feb 2009
ABSTRACT This study tested the hypothesis that empathizing with out-group members is beneficial outside of, but not within, intergroup-contact situations. We predicted that in the context of intergroup interaction, the potential for evaluation would lead individuals' perspective-taking efforts to take on an egocentric and counterproductive flavor. As predicted, when empathy was instantiated during an intergroup exchange, it failed to exert its usual positive effect on intergroup attitudes and led higher-prejudice individuals to derogate an out-group member who was an interaction partner; empathy also blocked the prejudice-reducing influence of intergroup contact. Mediation analyses indicated that activation of negative metastereotypes regarding the out-group's view of the in-group accounted for these effects. The findings, which demonstrate ironic effects of empathy in intergroup interaction, indicate that interventions based on studies of individuals' reactions to out-group members in the abstract might have dramatically different consequences when put into practice in real exchanges between members of different groups.
View
Identity Needs Versus Social Opportunities: The Use of Group-Level and Individual-Level Identity Management Strategies
Article
  • Mar 1997
This study investigates how relative group size and group status affect the use of direct and indirect identity management strategies, which may serve either individual or collective goals. On the basis of social identity theory, we hypothesized that strategy preference would be determined jointly by (1) the relative status of the in-group, (2) the nature of the comparison dimension, and (3) the level of in-group identification. In a laboratory situation, students were assigned randomly to groups of over-and underestimators. The in-group constituted either a majority or a minority group. Group status subsequently was manipulated by false feedback on a group creativity task. The main results showed that high status group members display in-group favoritism on status related dimensions, while low status group members consider the in-group superior on an alternative dimension. Furthermore, group members tend to accentuate the heterogeneity of the in-group on those dimensions on which they consider their group inferior. Finally, claims of in-group superiority on alternative dimensions in response to inferior status (a group-level strategy), were made only by high identifiers, while accentuation of in-group heterogeneity (an individual-level strategy) was observed only among low identifiers.
View
Social identity and perceptions of torture: It's moral when we do it
Article
  • Mar 2012
Two studies examined the effects of social identity concerns on the moral justification of torture. British and American nationals read a media report concerning the torture of a terrorist suspect that they were led to believe had been perpetrated either by members of their own nation's security services or by another nation's security services. When the torture was perpetrated by the ingroup, participants described it as more morally justified than when the torture was perpetrated by the other nation's security services. This effect was mediated by participants’ decreased empathy for the ingroup's torture victim (Study 1), as well as increased victim blame and perceiving the perpetrators as prototypical of their national group (Study 2). We consider how social identity concerns enable moral justification of harm doing.
View
Empathy, Attitudes, and Action: Can Feeling for a Member of a Stigmatized Group Motivate One to Help the Group?
Article
  • Dec 2002
  • Pers Soc Psychol Bull
Research reveals that inducing empathy for a member of a stigmatized group can improve attitudes toward the group as a whole. But do these more positive attitudes translate into action on behalf of the group? Results of an experiment suggested an affirmative answer to this question. Undergraduates first listened to an interview with a convicted heroin addict and dealer; they were then given a chance to recommend allocation of Student Senate funds to an agency to help drug addicts. (The agency would not help the addict whose interview they heard.) Participants induced to feel empathy for the addict allocated more funds to the agency. Replicating past results, these participants also reported more positive attitudes toward people addicted to hard drugs. In addition, an experimental condition in which participants were induced to feel empathy for a fictional addict marginally increased action on behalf of, and more positive attitudes toward, drug addicts.
View
How Perspective-Taking Helps and Hinders Group-Based Guilt as a Function of Group Identification
Article
  • Jan 2009
In two studies we hypothesized that outgroup perspective-taking promotes group-based guilt among weakly identified perpetrator group members, but hinders it among higher identifiers. In Study 1, native Dutch participants (N = 153) confronted their group's past mistreatment of outgroups, while perspective-taking was manipulated. This manipulation significantly increased guilt among lower identifiers, but decreased guilt among higher identifiers. In addition, guilt predicted positively participants' support for reparation. In Study 2 (N = 217), we replicated this interaction and elaborated on its underlying processes. As predicted, perspective-taking positively predicted feelings of compassion for outgroup members, as well as the perceived responsibility of the ingroup for the harm inflicted. Path analyses indicated the dual role of compassion: it predicted guilt positively among lower identifiers, but negatively among higher identifiers. The double-edged potential of perspective-taking for improving relations between groups that have a history on conflict is discussed.
View