The disempowering implications for members of marginalized groups of imposing a focus on personal experiences in discussions of intergroup issues.

In contrast to when members of marginalized groups choose to share their personal experiences on their own terms and in service of their own goals, when outside forces impose a focus on personal experiences in discussions of intergroup policies, there is instead the potential for disempowering implications: Being asked by someone else to approach intergroup issues through the specific lens of their personal experience may lead members of marginalized groups to sense that they are seen as the target of others' harmful (e.g., discrimination) or benevolent (e.g., empathy) moral actions. According to research and theory on moral typecasting, perceiving a person as a target is fundamentally incompatible with perceiving them as an agent and thus is linked to lower perceived competence. Extending this theory to self-perceptions, seven studies provide evidence for an imposed experience focus effect, whereby being prompted to talk about their personal experiences (vs. reasoning) in discussions of intergroup issues reduces racialized individuals' momentary feelings of power and power-relevant behaviors such as exerting social influence over White individuals' opinions. Perceptions of being viewed as less competent by others or seeing themselves as less competent in the moment were consistently implicated in this effect, which was not evident for White individuals or in discussions of general topics. Asking members of marginalized groups for their opinions in an open manner, or asking about their reasoning or personal firsthand knowledge, all appear to constitute means of learning about their perspective on intergroup issues in a more empowering way. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Do dominant group members have different emotional responses to observing dominant-on-dominant versus dominant-on-disadvantaged ostracism? Some evidence for heightened reactivity to potentially discriminatory ingroup behavior.

The importance of social connection to well-being is underscored by individuals' reactivity to events highlighting the potential for rejection and exclusion, which extends even to observing the social exclusion of others ("vicarious ostracism"). Because responses to vicarious ostracism depend at least in part on empathy with the target, and individuals tend to empathize less readily with outgroup than ingroup members, the question arises as to whether there is a boundary condition on vicarious ostracism effects whereby individuals are relatively immune to observing ingroup-on-outgroup ostracism. Of particular interest is the case where members of a dominant ethnic group observe fellow ingroup members ostracize a member of a disadvantaged ethnic minority group, as here there is a compelling potential alternative: Perceived violation of contemporary social norms condemning prejudice and discrimination might instead lead dominant group members to be especially upset by "dominant-on-disadvantaged" ostracism. Accordingly, the present research examines, across four studies and 4413 participants, individuals' affective reactions to observing dominant-on-disadvantaged versus dominant-on-dominant ostracism. In each study, dominant group members (White/Europeans) observed dominant group members include or ostracize a fellow dominant group member or a disadvantaged ethnic minority group member (a Black individual) in an online Cyberball game. Results revealed that dominant group members felt more guilt, anger, and sadness after observing severe ostracism of a disadvantaged as opposed to dominant group member. Although no direct effects emerged on behavioral outcomes, exploratory analyses suggested that observing ostracism of a disadvantaged (versus dominant) group member had indirect effects on behavior via increased feelings of anger. These results suggest that observing ostracism may be a sufficiently potent and relatable experience that when it occurs across group boundaries it awakens individuals' sensitivity to injustice and discrimination.

What really helps? Divergent implications of talking to someone with an empathic mindset versus similar experience for shame and self-evaluation in the wake of an embarrassing event.

What kinds of social interactions help individuals recover from an embarrassing experience? The present experiment examined the possibility that whereas individuals do not benefit from interacting with someone who is merely trying to understand and empathize, they do benefit from interacting with someone who has undergone the same experience and thus accurately understands their feelings. The 'target' member of 142 dyads performed an embarrassing task in front of the 'perceiver', after which they had a face-to-face discussion. Unbeknownst to targets, some perceivers did the task themselves beforehand, and some perceivers adopted an empathic mindset during the exchange. Perceivers' previous experience predicted improvements in targets' self-evaluations that were mediated by more accurate perceptions of targets' feelings. In contrast, perceivers' empathic mindset had no benefits for targets, alone or in concert with prior experience. The only apparent benefits of perceivers' empathic mindset were that perceivers felt more empathy and liking for targets (both undetected by targets), and felt viewed more favourably by targets (not corroborated by targets). These results suggest greater efficacy of perceiver experience over empathic concern in facilitating targets' recovery from embarrassing events. Perceivers' dispositional empathy, involving a different type of experience accumulated over time, also predicted benefits to targets.