Author: Eliana Kasichon Buonaiuto
Buonaiuto, Eliana Kasichon, 2024 Do You See What I See? When and Why Perspective-Taking Reduces Intergroup Hostility, or Backfires, Flinders University, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work
Terms of Use: This electronic version is (or will be) made publicly available by Flinders University in accordance with its open access policy for student theses. Copyright in this thesis remains with the author. You may use this material for uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968. If you are the owner of any included third party copyright material and/or you believe that any material has been made available without permission of the copyright owner please contact copyright@flinders.edu.au with the details.
Intergroup hostility (commonly referred to as ‘prejudice’) is a pervasive and detrimental issue for societies and individuals. Although popular methods to improve intergroup relationships (e.g., perspective-taking) have evidence supporting their efficacy; there are occasions where they produce null effects, or even exacerbate hostility. Therefore, my research focusses on identifying and understanding when and why efforts to improve intergroup relationships do, or do not, achieve the intended outcome. I integrated multiple theories to demonstrate that: (a) intergroup hostility is a social phenomenon that involves negative and positive attitudes, and how people perceive other groups in relation to themselves and the group they belong to; and (b) these negative and positive attitudes play a role in the perspective-taking process and its impact on intergroup hostility. I propose that it is necessary to consider the broader intergroup context - that is, the substantive nature of the relationship between two groups - in order to understand when the effects of perspective-taking are positive (reducing hostility) or negative (enhancing hostility). As an additional contribution, I also examine how variation in hostility can be explained by other methodological and outcome-related factors.
In Chapter 2, I develop the proposition that people have a priori/pre-existing perceptions of different marginalised groups in their immediate or broader environment and that these perceptions matter for willingness and ability to engage in methods like perspective-taking. However, the literature is yet to consider how these perceptions may impact people’s engagement in the methods practitioners and researchers used to reduce intergroup hostility. Accordingly, Chapter 2 explores the barriers and facilitators of motivations to engage in perspective-taking. Specifically, Chapter 2 reports the findings of two cross-sectional studies exploring: (a) how people perceive different social groups (based on models from the stereotype content and threat literatures); and (b) and how these perceptions shape willingness and ability to engage in perspective-taking.
Chapter 3 reports the findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect perspective-taking on intergroup attitudes, behaviours, and solidarity (i.e., Study 3). This meta-analysis addresses two aims. First: to assess the overall effect of perspective-taking on reducing intergroup hostility. Second: to examine how these effects are influenced by four moderators pertaining to the methodological approach (e.g., imagine-self versus imagine-other instructions) and outcomes (e.g., attitudes versus behaviours, respectively) of perspective-taking. The findings from Study 3 provides some explanations as to why perspective-taking does not always reduce intergroup hostility, and resolves long-standing debates within the literature.
In Chapter 4, I investigate if, and how, perspective-taking has varying effects on intergroup hostility depending on the social group in question. Across two studies, I examine the moderating effects of group perceptions on the relationship between perspective-taking and intergroup hostility. The central study was a meta-analysis (i.e., Study 5) where I explored whether the effects of perspective-taking varied depending on the social group in question, and if the way in which people perceive social groups moderated the effects of perspective-taking on intergroup attitudes, behaviours, and solidarity. However, stereotypes of groups are known to change over time (Turner et al., 1994). Thus, for Study 4, I extracted historical context statements from each of the primary studies included in the meta-analysis from Study 3. The experts’ ratings were then used in a meta-regression to determine whether the effects of perspective-taking on intergroup hostility were contingent on how people’s perceptions of different groups.
Overall, the results from my studies emphasise the importance of context – factors relating to the motivation of the perceiver, as well as the substantive nature of the a priori relationship between groups – when applying strategies to reduce intergroup hostility. Insights from this research may help improve research and campaign practises, so that more effective strategies for combatting intergroup hostility are employed.
Keywords: prejudice, prejudice reduction, intergroup hostility, perspective-taking, stereotype content model, threat, attitudes, behaviours, solidarity, willingness, ability, meta-analysis, structural equation modelling
Subject: Psychology thesis
Thesis type: Doctor of Philosophy
Completed: 2024
School: College of Education, Psychology and Social Work
Supervisor: Professor Emma F. Thomas