Exploring Actual and Presumed Links between Accurately Inferring Contents of Other People's Minds and Prosocial Outcomes.

The term "empathic accuracy" has been applied to people's ability to infer the contents of other people's minds-that is, other people's varying feelings and/or thoughts over the course of a social interaction. However, despite the ease of intuitively linking this skill to competence in helping professions such as counseling, the "empathic" prefix in its name may have contributed to overestimating its association with prosocial traits and behaviors. Accuracy in reading others' thoughts and feelings, like many other skills, can be used toward prosocial-but also malevolent or morally neutral-ends. Prosocial intentions can direct attention towards other people's thoughts and feelings, which may, in turn, increase accuracy in inferring those thoughts and feelings, but attention to others' thoughts and feelings does not necessarily heighten prosocial intentions, let alone outcomes.

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).

The link between perspective-taking and prosociality - Not as universal as you might think.

The path from perspective-taking to prosocial behavior is not as straightforward or robust as it is often assumed to be. In some contexts, imagining the viewpoint of other person leads the perspective taker to thoughts about how that person might have negative thoughts or intentions toward them. It can also prompt other kinds of counter-productive egocentric projection. In this review, we consider how prosocial processes potentially stimulated by perspective-taking can be derailed in such contexts. We also identify methodological limitations in current (social-) psychological evidence for a causal link between perspective-taking and prosocial outcomes. Increased appreciation of factors moderating the path from perspective-taking to prosocial behavior can enhance the explanatory power of perspective-taking as social cognitive process.

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.

Salient Multiculturalism Enhances Minority Group Members' Feelings of Power.

The present research examined how messages advocating different intergroup ideologies affect outcomes relevant to minority group members' ability to exert power in exchanges with dominant group members. We expected that salient multiculturalism would have positive implications for minority group members' feelings of power by virtue of highlighting essential contributions they make to society, and that no such empowering effect would be evident for them in connection with alternative ideologies such as color-blindness or for dominant group members. Results across four studies involving different participant populations, operationalizations of ideology, ethnic minority groups, and experimental settings were consistent with these hypotheses and further indicated that the effects of salient multiculturalism on feelings of power had downstream implications for expectations of control in an ostensibly upcoming intergroup interaction and general goal-directed cognition.

Reductions in Goal-Directed Cognition as a Consequence of Being the Target of Empathy.

Although empathy is widely promoted as a beneficial practice across both intergroup and interpersonal contexts, the implications of being the target of empathy for the target's own psychological state are unclear. Three experiments examined how being the target of empathy affects goal-directed cognition outcomes related to a psychological sense of power, namely, the ability to maintain goal focus and readiness to ask for more in negotiations. We reasoned that because individuals typically empathize with others they perceive as disadvantaged and needing support, trying to empathize would raise individuals up in terms of such outcomes at the same time as it pushed the targets of their empathy down in a complementary fashion. Results were consistent with these predictions across intergroup and intragroup interaction. The findings thus suggest that individuals' efforts to empathize can undermine the targets of their empathy in a subtle manner by hindering their ability to pursue their goals.

You don't really love me, do you? Negative effects of imagine-other perspective-taking on lower self-esteem individuals' relationship well-being.

Two studies demonstrated that active efforts to appreciate a romantic partner's unique point of view (imagine-other perspective-taking) lead individuals lower in self-esteem (LSEs) to feel less loved by their partner and less satisfied with their relationship as a result. These effects were evident regardless of whether individuals' perspective-taking efforts involved reflecting specifically on a disagreement with their partner (Study 2) or not (Study 1). The studies thus identify a new path through which perspective-taking efforts can detract from relational well-being, one to which LSEs are uniquely vulnerable. Results from an open-ended thought-listing task administered in Study 2 confirmed that increased cognitive energy LSEs devoted to drawing (negative) metaperceptual inferences about their partner's evaluation of them contributed to the negative effect of imagine-other perspective-taking on their perceived regard. No such effects were evident for individuals higher in self-esteem, and imagine-self perspective-taking instead exerted a general positive influence on individuals' evaluations of their partner.

Potential negative effects of perspective-taking efforts in the context of close relationships: increased bias and reduced satisfaction.

Three experiments demonstrated that trying to appreciate a close other's unique point of view (imagine-other perspective taking) increases the extent to which individuals overestimate their own transparency to the close other, that is, how many of their values, preferences, traits, and feelings are readily apparent to him or her. Trying to be objective and pay careful attention to cues from a close other, which inhibits perspective taking, instead had the opposite effect. Mediation analyses suggested that increased focus on the self as an object of evaluation contributed to the positive effect of imagine-other perspective taking on perceived transparency, and decreased focus on the self as an object of evaluation contributed to the negative effect of trying to be objective on these judgments. These effects on perceived transparency had important implications for relationship well-being: Enhanced perceived transparency of negative feelings prompted by imagine-other perspective taking during a back-and-forth exchange with a romantic partner led to systematic discrepancies between individuals' own and their partner's experience of the exchange and reduced relationship satisfaction; trying to be objective instead reduced perceived transparency and thereby increased satisfaction. Notably, initial closeness with another person enhanced rather than tempered the egocentric effects of perspective taking. Taken together, these results suggest that positive motivations to nurture a close relationship and be sensitive to a loved one might sometimes be better channeled toward paying closer attention to his or her behavior than toward perspective taking.

Completing the implicit association test reduces positive intergroup interaction behavior.

It is frequently suggested that increasing awareness of intergroup bias and limited control over biased responses can improve intergroup interaction behavior. Some uses of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) epitomize this approach to improving intergroup relations. However, if completing the IAT enhances caution and inhibition, reduces self-efficacy, or primes categorical thinking, the test may instead have negative effects. Two experiments demonstrated that when White individuals completed a race-relevant IAT prior to an intergroup interaction (as compared with when they did not), their interaction partner left the exchange feeling less positively regarded. No such effect was evident when White individuals completed a race-irrelevant IAT (Study 1) or an explicit prejudice measure (Study 2) before the exchange, or when their interaction partner was White (Study 1). Mediation analyses (Study 2) suggested that White participants who completed the IAT communicated less positive regard because they adopted a cautious approach to the interaction, limiting their self-disclosure.

In the worst rather than the best of times: effects of salient intergroup ideology in threatening intergroup interactions.

Three studies demonstrated that a salient multicultural ideology increases hostile treatment of threatening outgroup interaction partners. The effect of multiculturalism on hostile behavior was evident regardless of whether threat was operationalized in terms of disagreement with an outgroup partner on important social issues (Studies 1 and 3) or rejection by the partner (Study 2). Moreover, the results clearly point to the learning orientation fostered by multiculturalism--as opposed to other factors such as enhanced other-focus, group-level attributions, or focus on differences--as the critical mediator of its effect on hostile behavior under threat. Thus, it appears that multiculturalism enhances the expression of hostility because it prompts individuals to really engage with and attach meaning and importance to threatening behaviors exhibited by outgroup members. The effects of multiculturalism were distinct from those of anti-racism and color-blindness, which set in motion processes that in many respects are directly opposite to those instantiated by multiculturalism. The findings highlight that the behavioral implications of multiculturalism may be quite different in conflictual interactions than they have previously been demonstrated to be in less threatening exchanges.

Salient intergroup ideology and intergroup interaction.

Two experiments examined how rendering different intergroup ideologies salient affects dominant- and minority-group members' behavior during, and experience of, intergroup interactions. We hypothesized that ideologies that encourage an outward focus on appreciating out-group members' distinctive qualities (multiculturalism) would have more positive implications than ideologies that encourage a self-control focus on ignoring social categories and avoiding inappropriate behavior (color blindness and antiracism). As predicted, in both ostensible (Study 1) and actual face-to-face (Study 2) intergroup interactions, the multicultural ideological prompt led dominant- and minority-group members to adopt a more outward focus and hence to direct more positive other-directed comments to an interaction partner who was a member of an out-group. In contrast, the color-blind prompt fostered a prevention orientation in dominant-group members that led them to express negative affect toward their out-group interaction partner. The antiracist prompt had no consistent effects. Implications for efforts to improve intergroup relations are discussed.

When trying to understand detracts from trying to behave: effects of perspective taking in intergroup interaction.

Four studies demonstrate that perspective taking can backfire in intergroup interaction, leading lower prejudice individuals to treat an outgroup member less positively than they do when they adopt alternative mind-sets; for higher prejudice individuals, perspective taking instead had a positive, albeit less consistent, effect on behavior. The net result was behavior disruption, whereby individuals' treatment of an outgroup member became incongruent with their inner attitudes. This disruption effect was evident for cognitive and affective forms of perspective taking, in ostensible and real face-to-face intergroup interactions, and for feelings of happiness experienced by individuals' interaction partner as well as outside observers' behavior assessments. Results further suggested that self-regulatory effort mediated the effect of perspective taking on intergroup interaction behavior, with the negative consequences of perspective taking for lower prejudice individuals' behavior appearing to stem from complacency rather than trying too hard. Overall, the findings reveal that perspective taking rather than self-focus accounts for the cognitive resource depletion and behavior disruption effects previously demonstrated to stem from evaluative concern in intergroup interaction and indicate that perspective taking may be more reliably helpful outside of intergroup interaction situations than within them.

Helpful only in the 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.

Who cares what the outgroup thinks? Testing an information search model of the importance individuals accord to an outgroup member's view of them during intergroup interaction.

Four studies examined whether the intensity of individuals' concern with evaluation is affected by whether they are engaged in intragroup or intergroup interaction. According to the authors' theoretical framework, the importance that individuals attach to another person's opinion is a function of how predictive that person's evaluation seems to be of their social standing and outcomes. Members of lower status groups are more invested in outgroup members' opinions with increasing perceived legitimacy of the group status difference because outgroup members are seen as better judges of the competencies necessary for success in society. Members of a higher status group are more invested in outgroup members' opinions with decreasing perceived legitimacy of the group status difference because outgroup members are seen as better judges of moral goodness. Results were generally consistent with these predictions and demonstrated that intergroup exchanges are sometimes characterized by heightened levels of the basic motivation to know one's social standing with others. Findings also revealed that the interactive effect of group status and perceived legitimacy extends to egocentric biases that contribute to tension and miscommunication in intergroup interaction.

An information search model of evaluative concerns in intergroup interaction.

In an information search model, evaluative concerns during intergroup interaction are conceptualized as a joint function of uncertainty regarding and importance attached to out-group members' views of oneself. High uncertainty generally fosters evaluative concerns during intergroup exchanges. Importance depends on whether out-group members' evaluations are perceived as diagnostic of one's social standing and outcomes. Perceived diagnosticity can arise from the out-group's control over resources (contingency) and/or ability to provide accurate assessments (expertise) and is a function of the relative status of one's group and the perceived legitimacy of the group status difference. Evaluative concerns trigger information search efforts and forms of uncertainty reduction that have a variety of negative downstream effects. Implications for efforts to improve intergroup relations are discussed.

I thought we could be friends, but ...: systematic miscommunication and defensive distancing as obstacles to cross-group friendship formation.

This study examined the precursors and consequences of systematic miscommunications regarding relationship interest during intergroup interaction. Pairs of previously unacquainted same-sex students (White-White, White-Chinese, or Chinese-Chinese) engaged in a relatively intimate controlled interaction. White participants who had had little prior contact with Chinese persons were more apt to exhibit a signal-amplification bias (i.e., to perceive that their overtures had conveyed more interest than was actually the case) in intergroup as compared with intragroup exchanges. In contrast, White participants with high levels of prior contact with Chinese persons and Chinese participants did not show enhanced signal amplification in intergroup relative to intragroup exchanges. These results support our hypothesis that lack of intergroup contact experience sets the stage for miscommunications regarding friendship interest. White participants' tendency to feel that they had initially communicated more interest in being friends than their Chinese partner mediated a downward shift in their actual friendship interest over time, suggesting that signal amplification triggers defensive distancing and ultimately lowers the likelihood of cross-group friendship formation.

Miscommunications surrounding efforts to reach out across group boundaries.

Two studies examined the communication of friendship interest within versus across group boundaries in relatively intimate exchanges. The main hypothesis was that so long as reasonable levels of friendship interest were in place, individuals would be more apt to exaggerate the clarity of their overtures (i.e., to exhibit a signal amplification bias) in intergroup as compared to within-group interaction. In line with predictions, this pattern was evident for lower-prejudice individuals, who were equally interested in ingroup and outgroup members as potential friends, but not for higher-prejudice individuals, who were relatively disinterested in cross-group friendship and instead tended to underestimate the friendship interest they conveyed to outgroup members. In contrast with the implications of past research centering on trait impressions and impersonal exchanges, both of these effects appeared to be driven by heightened feelings of transparency in intergroup as compared to within-group interaction.

Disruptive effects of vigilance on dominant group members' treatment of outgroup members: choking versus shining under pressure.

Three studies examined the hypothesis that evaluative concerns exert a disruptive effect on intimacy-building behaviors exhibited by dominant group members in intergroup interaction. The authors predicted that although evaluative concerns would lead individuals with a negative baseline response to outgroup members to shine (i.e., to exhibit warmer, more friendly behavior), such concerns would have a contrary, choking, effect on individuals with a more positive baseline response. Results were generally consistent with these hypotheses across 3 different operationalizations of evaluative concerns and regardless of whether individuals' orientation toward outgroup members was assessed in terms of prejudiced racial attitudes or racial ingroup identification. Implications for lower status group members' experience of intergroup interaction and for the prejudice-reduction process are considered.

Family caregiver perspective-taking and accuracy in estimating cancer patient symptom experiences.

As family caregivers assume more prominent roles in the provision of home care to persons with serious illness, investigators must test the effectiveness of novel interventions to facilitate family caring for cancer patients. This article is based on results derived from a larger study carried out in Canada that was designed to compare 98 advanced cancer patient and family caregiver perceptions of 32 patient symptom experiences as captured by the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale. We examined two main questions: (1) whether "natural" family caregivers' perceptions of patient lack of energy and worrying are more closely related to a self- or patient-oriented viewpoint and (2) whether induced "imagine-patient" perspective-taking can assist caregivers to achieve better perceptual accuracy. The caregiver's natural responses to neutral instructions that neither encouraged nor discouraged perspective-taking served as the baseline comparison with three other instructional sets, in which caregivers were prompted to: (1) provide a self-report on their own symptom experiences, (2) imagine how they would feel in the patient's situation (imagine-self), or (3) imagine how the patient would respond to his or her symptom situation (imagine-patient). Findings suggested that the family caregivers' natural judgments correspond most closely to what they do under an imagine-patient set than to what they do under any other set. Findings with respect to accuracy indicated that instructions to imagine the patient's perspective helped to prompt adjustments down from a self-oriented viewpoint, although definitive conclusions were precluded by difficulties with order effects.