Seeing the world with the eyes of the outgroup — The impact of perspective taking on the prototypicality of the ingroup relative to the outgroup

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (2013) 1034–1041

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp

Seeing the world with the eyes of the outgroup — The impact of perspective taking on the prototypicality of the ingroup relative to the outgroup☆,☆☆ Anne Berthold a,⁎, Carola Leicht b, Nicole Methner c, Petra Gaum d a

University of Zürich, Switzerland Centre for Social Relations, Coventry University, UK c Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Germany d Institute of Occupational Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Germany b

H I G H L I G H T S • • • •

Relative ingroup prototypicality was expected to be reduced after perspective taking. In three studies, perspective taking decreased relative ingroup prototypicality. Perspective taking improved outgroup attitudes. Prototypicality mediated the effect of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 7 March 2012 Revised 9 July 2013 Available online 24 July 2013 Keywords: Perspective taking Relative ingroup prototypicality Attitude towards outgroup

a b s t r a c t The positive effect of perspective taking on favorable attitudes towards stigmatized individuals and outgroups is well established (Batson et al., 1997). We draw on the ingroup projection model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999) to better understand the processes underlying this effect. Based on their egocentric perspective, ingroup and outgroup members have different representations of the superordinate group (perspective divergence) so that the ingroup is perceived as more relatively prototypical of the superordinate group, leading to negative outgroup evaluation. We hypothesize that the positive effect of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes is due to a reduction of relative ingroup prototypicality. Across three studies with different manipulations of perspective taking, we found that participants who were taking the perspective of an outgroup member evaluated the outgroup more positively and were less inclined to perceive their ingroup as more relatively prototypical. The effect of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes was mediated by relative ingroup prototypicality. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction Perspective taking has been found to be a powerful tool to improve negative attitudes (cf. Batson et al., 1997). In this research we aim to gain a deeper insight in the mechanisms underlying perspective taking effects by applying the ingroup projection model

☆ This research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (FOR 481, MU 551/23-4). We are very thankful to Steve Wright, Amélie Mummendey, Johannes Ullrich and Gerhard Reese for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. ☆☆ Special thanks go to Carolin Fremer, Marianne Haase, Carolin Krahmer, Sissy Peiselt, Christina Reiter, Simone Ringlau, Nils Töpfer und Adrian Ziemann for their collaboration in planning and conducting Studies 1 and 3. ⁎ Corresponding author at: University of Zürich, Personality and Assessment, Binzmuehlestr.14/7, 8050 Zürich, Switzerland. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Berthold). 0022-1031/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.007

(Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999). A basic assumption of this model is that a divergence of perspectives between ingroup and outgroup regarding a common superordinate group leads to negative outgroup attitudes (Wenzel, Mummendey, Weber, & Waldzus, 2003). Individuals tend to perceive their ingroup as more prototypical of a superordinate group than outgroups and therefore evaluate outgroups as more negatively. We propose that perspective taking improves negative outgroup attitudes because it alters the initial egocentric perspective (cf. Thompson & Loewenstein, 1992). We hypothesize that taking the outgroup members' perspective should decrease the divergence of perspectives between ingroup and outgroup. Consequently, individuals should no longer perceive their ingroup as more relatively prototypical and evaluate the outgroup more positively. In short, the current research aims to study the mediating role of relative ingroup prototypicality between perspective taking and outgroup attitudes.

A. Berthold et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (2013) 1034–1041

Perspective taking Perspective taking research is an important topic in social psychology, especially because it has been shown to be a fruitful approach to improving attitudes towards outgroups (Shih, Wang, Trahan Bucher, & Stotzer, 2009). Studies of Batson et al. (1997) showed that individuals indicate more positive attitudes towards people with HIV in general after taking the perspective of a person infected with HIV. Similar results were obtained by Galinsky and his colleagues (Galinsky & Ku, 2004; Galinsky, Ku, & Wang, 2005; Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000). They found that participants who were asked to take the perspective of an outgroup member (e.g., a black person, an old person) reported more positive outgroup attitudes (see also Vescio, Sechrist, & Paolucci, 2003). Several attempts were made to shed light on the mechanisms underlying perspective taking (Dovidio et al., 2004). Batson et al. (1997) showed that the attitudes toward stigmatized others are improved because perspective taking induces empathy towards this group of people (see also Stephan & Finlay, 1999). Galinsky et al. (2005), on the other hand, argue that perspective taking induces a self-other overlap which increases perceived similarity between the other and the self. Moreover, Todd, Bodenhausen, Richeson, and Galinsky (2011) recently reported that the positive effect of perspective taking is due to an increase in approach behavior. Altogether, perspective taking apparently involves a multitude of factors and more research in this area is clearly warranted. If attitudes towards others are indeed improved after perspective taking, one can infer that there had been a notable disagreement of perspectives in the first place. The modification of individuals' former egocentric perspective apparently enables to reduce such a divergence of perspectives, consequently leading to more positive attitudes. We assume that the alteration of the egocentric perspective and judgment is responsible for the positive effects of perspective taking. In the following we present a model that sheds more light on the relation of egocentrism and negative outgroup attitudes. Divergence of perspectives and relative ingroup prototypicality The ingroup projection model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999) focuses on the perspectives of ingroup and outgroups regarding their typicality for a common superordinate group that includes both groups. The model proposes that group members transfer (i.e., project) features of their ingroup onto the prototype of the superordinate group. Accordingly, the superordinate group is represented in a way that makes the ingroup more prototypical than the outgroup. As a consequence of this process (i.e., ingroup projection), outgroup members are perceived as less prototypical of the superordinate group and therefore evaluated more negatively. Several studies have shown that ingroups are indeed perceived as more prototypical than outgroups and that the evaluation of outgroups is related to perceptions of prototypicality (Waldzus & Mummendey, 2004; Waldzus, Mummendey, & Wenzel, 2005; Waldzus, Mummendey, Wenzel, & Weber, 2003; Wenzel, Mummendey, & Waldzus, 2007). Members of different subgroups judge from their egocentric perspective and project their specific group characteristics onto the superordinate group (Waldzus, Mummendey, Wenzel, & Böttcher, 2004). Consequently, subgroups differ regarding the representation of the common superordinate group. Wenzel et al. (2003) confirmed this perspective divergence by showing that psychology- and business-students had different representations of the relevant superordinate group “students in general”. While psychology students perceived more similarities between students in general and the ingroup of psychology students, business students perceived more similarities between students in general and their ingroup business students. Ingroup projection can be considered as the group-level equivalent to the false consensus effect (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977).

1035

One possible explanation for both phenomena is that individuals' own perspective serves as a default fostering egocentric judgments (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Moreover, egocentrism is known to influence perception of justice and fairness and also hinders conflict resolution (cf. Thompson & Loewenstein, 1992). Based on these findings and the predictions of the ingroup projection model an alteration of group members' egocentric perspective should reduce the tendency to perceive the ingroup as relatively more prototypical than the outgroup. Outgroup evaluations are known to depend on the perceived prototypicality (Ullrich, 2009; Wenzel et al., 2007). Intergroup relations will improve when none of the subgroups egocentrically believes itself to be more prototypical. When ingroup members take the perspective of the other group, the perceived relative ingroup prototypicality should be reduced and the outgroup should be evaluated more positively. Perspective taking and the prototypicality of in- & outgroup The current research combines perspective taking with research on relative ingroup prototypicality. This integration has two important implications. First, the research on perspective taking is extended by a new potential mediator – the perceived prototypicality of in- and outgroup – in order to shed more light on the processes underlying perspective taking effects. Second, using perspective taking to influence the perceived prototypicality of ingroup and outgroup offers a promising opportunity to investigate how relative ingroup prototypicality can be reduced. Our aim was to test the role of relative ingroup prototypicality as a potential mediator of perspective taking effects. First, we investigated whether ingroup members perceived their ingroup as less relatively prototypical when asked to take the perspective of the outgroup. Second, we aimed to show that perspective taking improves outgroup attitudes. Finally, we tested whether the influence of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes would be mediated by the relative prototypicality of in- and outgroups. We conducted three studies to test these hypotheses. Participants either took the outgroups' perspective or not and then reported their representation of the superordinate group and outgroup attitudes. Study 1 The aim of this study was to show that perspective taking influences relative ingroup prototypicality and consequently outgroup attitudes. We used an established manipulation of perspective taking. As previous research on perspective taking, we manipulated participants' perspective by asking them to write an essay about a typical day of an ingroup member or an outgroup member (see Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000). Additionally, there was a third condition in which participants wrote from the perspective of a superordinate group member. Thereby, we could compare if participants in the ingroup and superordinate group condition would write similar essays. According to the ingroup projection model, ingroup members should be considered as highly typical exemplars of the superordinate group. Hence, a typical day of a superordinate group member should match the day of an ingroup member. We expected no differences between ingroup and superordinate group conditions regarding relative ingroup prototypicality and also with respect to outgroup attitudes. However, participants who were asked to write an essay from the outgroup perspective should perceive the ingroup as less relatively prototypical of the superordinate group compared to participants with an ingroup perspective. Furthermore, we expected that participants with outgroup (vs. ingroup) perspective would indicate more positive outgroup attitudes due to reduced relative ingroup prototypicality.

1036

A. Berthold et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (2013) 1034–1041

Eighty-six students participated in this study and were randomly assigned to one of the three experimental conditions (ingroup, outgroup, superordinate group perspective). Sixty-five were female and 21 male (mean age was 21.33 years, SD = 2.46, range = 18–301). The sample was recruited from psychology undergraduates living in Jena, the ingroup was “young people in Jena”, the outgroup was “elderly people in Jena”, and the superordinate group was “people in Jena”.

from the rating of the superordinate group. Thereby, we obtained two separate congruence scores for ingroup and outgroup that could range from − 6 to 6. Then, the absolute values of these scores (range 0 to 6) were subtracted from the scale range of 7 in order to prevent a division by zero (range 1 to 7). Finally, relative ingroup prototypicality was computed by dividing the ingroup congruencescore by the outgroup congruence-score (meta contrast ratio, Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987, see also Berthold, Mummendey, Kessler, Luecke, & Schubert, 2012). The resulting measure for each of the ten attributes varied between 0.14 and 7 with higher scores indicating more relative ingroup prototypicality. A mean RIP-index was calculated by averaging all ten RIP-scores.

Procedure

Results

The study was introduced as a survey about life in the town Jena. Participants were first asked to indicate some demographics. To assess participants' ingroup and outgroup representations, we then asked them to rate the ingroup (young people in Jena) and the outgroup (elderly people in Jena) on ten attributes2 (e.g., modern, flexible, lonely, experienced, immature, careless, dynamic, patient). We used a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Next, participants were asked to write an essay about the typical day of either a young (ingroup), an elderly (outgroup) or an unspecified person living in Jena (superordinate group). As a manipulation check they subsequently indicated the age of the person they had written about. Afterwards, all participants rated the superordinate group (people in Jena) on the same ten attributes that were used before to assess ingroup and outgroup representations. A relative ingroup prototypicality score was computed using the attribute ratings of ingroup, outgroup and superordinate group (see below). Subsequently, the outgroup attitudes were assessed with twelve items. Based on the tripartite view of attitudes as composed of affective, behavioral, and cognitive components (e.g., Ostrom, 1969), we included items on stereotypic beliefs (e.g., reverse coded “Elderly people often complain about the behavior of the younger generation.”), affective reactions (e.g., “The presence of elderly people is pleasant.”) and behavioral preferences (e.g., “It is nice to spend time with elderly people.”) using a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). Considering all twelve items, a factor analysis revealed a strong first factor (eigenvalue: 3.97), explaining 33.05% of the variance, on which all items loaded higher than .27. Thus, we treated all items as indicators of a general concept (Cronbach's α = .81). The attitude scale had a mean of M = 4.00, SD = .77, with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes. Finally, participants were thanked and debriefed via email.

Manipulation check of perspective taking

Method Participants and design

Relative ingroup prototypicality (RIP) Participants' ratings of ingroup, outgroup and superordinate group regarding the ten attributes were used to analyze the congruence among ingroup and superordinate group and the congruence among outgroup and superordinate group. We first subtracted participants' rating regarding the ingroup from the rating of the superordinate group. Second, the outgroup rating was subtracted

1 Older participants might have responded differently to the manipulation. However, additional analyses revealed no significant interactions of condition (IG & SOG vs. OG) and age on relative ingroup prototypicality or outgroup attitudes, Fprototypicality (1.59) = .20, p = .65, Foutgroup attitudes(1.59) = .24, p = .63. 2 The attributes used here and in the following studies were selected based on pretests in which participants were asked to list adjectives they would spontaneously associate with the different groups. We selected the most frequently mentioned attributes with the proviso that the final list would have to be balanced in terms of the valence associated with ingroup and outgroup items.

To test whether the manipulation was successful, an ANOVA was conducted with the age of the imagined person as the dependent variable and perspective taking condition as the independent variable. The age of the imagined person should be higher in the outgroup perspective condition. As expected, there was a significant main effect of perspective taking condition, F(2, 79) = 476.23, p b .01, η2 = .93. Simple comparisons showed that participants with the outgroup perspective (elderly people in Jena) indicated a higher age of their respective imagined person (MOG = 71.46, SDOG = 6.49) than those in the ingroup perspective condition (MIG = 20.93, SDIG = 2.71; t(50) = 37.59, p b .01, d = 10.15) and the superordinate group perspective condition (MSOG = 23.57, SDSOG = 8.88; t(50) = 21.90, p b .01, d = 6.15). There was no significant difference between ingroup and superordinate conditions, t(54) = 1.51, p = .14. Given that we report this result in the manipulation check section, one might legitimately wonder if our manipulation of the superordinate perspective had failed. However, we included this experimental condition to demonstrate that people spontaneously construe the superordinate prototype in ingroup terms. That is, when young people think about people in Jena, they think about young people. This finding is interesting in its own right, because it indicates that people do think by default that the superordinate group IS the ingroup. As it is more peripheral to the main goals of the present research, however, we did not include this condition in the subsequent experiments. Relative ingroup prototypicality We analyzed whether relative ingroup prototypicality was reduced due to perspective taking3. A one-factorial ANOVA with perspective condition as independent variable showed the expected significant main effect of perspective taking, F(2, 83) = 3.15, p b .05, η2 = .07. Participants in the outgroup perspective condition indicated a lower relative ingroup prototypicality (MOG = 1.03, SDOG = .08)

3 Note that the research is predominantly focused on the relative prototypicality of the ingroup as indicator of ingroup projection. A decrease in relative ingroup prototypicality can either be due to a decrease of the ingroup prototypicality or to an increase of the outgroup prototypicality. Both ingroup and outgroup prototypicalities can also be analyzed separately. In Study 1, the manipulation had an impact on the relative ingroup prototypicality, but not on the ingroup prototypicality score (β = −.03, p = .76) or the outgroup prototypicality score (β = .16, p = .14). The same pattern was found in Study 2 (βingroup prototypicality = −.20, p = .15; βoutgroup prototypicality = .14, p = .30). In Study 3, the manipulation influenced the prototypicality of the ingroup (β = −.31, p = .02) but not of the outgroup (β = .14, p = .29). Note that despite the inconsistent p-values, the pattern was highly consistent in that ingroup prototypicality was always reduced and outgroup prototypicality was always increased by perspective taking. Furthermore, for testing our hypotheses the relative prototypicality is the theoretically most relevant parameter.

A. Berthold et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (2013) 1034–1041

a

1037

Relative Ingroup Prototypicality -.31** (-.36**)

-.25*

Perspective Condition

Positive Outgroup Attitudes .19 (.27* )

b

Relative Ingroup Prototypicality -.43** (-.47**)

-.29*

Perspective Condition

Positive Outgroup Attitudes .15 (.27* )

c

Relative Ingroup Prototypicality -.27* (-.33**)

-.39**

Perspective Condition

.16 (.27* )

Positive Outgroup Attitudes

Fig. 1. Positive outgroup attitudes as a function of perspective condition and relative ingroup prototypicality in Study 1 (a), Study 2 (b), and Study 3 (c). Coding of perspective condition: panel a. −1 = ingroup and superordinate group perspective, 2 = outgroup perspective, panels b and 1c. −1 = control, 1 = outgroup perspective. All paths with standardized beta weights (zero order betas in parentheses), *p b .05; **p b .01.

than participants in the ingroup perspective condition (MIG = 1.14, SDIG = .15; t(53) = 3.27, p b .01, d = .91). Moreover, there was no significant difference between ingroup perspective and superordinate group perspective conditions (MSOG = 1.09, SDSOG=. 21), t(57) = .89, p = .38. We also analyzed if the mean values of both conditions differed significantly from 1, because a value of 1 indicates that both subgroups are equally prototypical. In the ingroup and superordinate group conditions the value was significantly above 1, tIG (30) = 5.10, p b .01 and tSOG (28) = 2.39, p = .02, indicating that the ingroup was perceived as relatively more prototypical than the outgroup. In contrast, in the outgroup perspective condition the value was not significantly different from 1, t(24) = 1.74, p = .10. Outgroup attitudes Participants taking the outgroup's perspective were expected to have more positive attitudes towards the outgroup. As predicted there was a main effect of perspective condition on outgroup attitudes F(2, 83) = 4.18, p = .02, η2 = .09. Participants with the outgroup perspective (elderly people in Jena) reported more positive outgroup attitudes (MOG = 4.32, SDOG = .59) than participants with the perspective of the ingroup (MIG = 3.72, SDIG = .71; t(54) = 3.40, p b .01, d = .92). Again, there was no difference

between ingroup and superordinate group conditions (MSOG = 4.01, SDSOG = .78), t(58) = 1.35, p = .18. Mediation hypothesis To examine the mediating role of relative ingroup prototypicality between perspective taking and outgroup attitudes, we used the procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). For the subsequent analyses perspective taking condition was coded as follows; the cases with outgroup perspective were coded as 2, all other cases as −1. This coding reflects our theoretical assumption that due to ingroup projection, the ingroup and superordinate perspective conditions should be identical. This reasoning was confirmed by our manipulation check showing that the outgroup perspective condition differed significantly from the other two conditions. No differences were found between ingroup and superordinate group conditions. Thus, we decided to collapse these two conditions and to contrast them together against the outgroup condition. As expected, perspective taking reduced relative ingroup prototypicality, β = − .25, p = .02, and increased positive outgroup attitudes, β = .27, p = .02. Another regression analysis showed that lower relative ingroup prototypicality was related to improved outgroup attitudes, β = − .36, p b .01. Perspective taking condition (independent variable) and relative ingroup prototypicality (mediator) were entered into a regression to predict outgroup attitudes (dependent variable). The findings

1038

A. Berthold et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (2013) 1034–1041

would play a mediating role between perspective taking and positive outgroup attitudes.

showed that when the mediator (prototypicality) was entered into the regression equation along with perspective condition, perspective condition was no longer a significant predictor of outgroup attitudes, β = .19, p = .08. The regression coefficient of prototypicality, however, remained significant, β = − .31, p b .01 (R2 = .16). A Sobel test confirmed that relative ingroup prototypicality fully mediated the effect of perspective taking on positive outgroup attitudes, Sobel Z = 1.96, p b .05 (see Fig. 1a). Similar results were obtained by bootstrapping4 (N = 10,000) the indirect effect. The findings showed that the indirect effect of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes via relative ingroup prototypicality was b = .13, p b .05 with the confidence interval excluding zero, 95% BCa (bias-corrected and accelerated) = [.01, .33].

Fifty-five students participated in this study and were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (control condition, outgroup perspective condition). Thirty-nine were female and 16 male (mean age = 23.06, SD = 2.87, range = 19–31). Participants took approximately 30 min to complete the questionnaire and received course credits.

Discussion

Procedure

In Study 1 we used an established social cognitive way of manipulating perspective taking and showed that taking the perspective of an outgroup member decreased relative ingroup prototypicality and increased positive outgroup attitudes. As expected, we found that the increase of positive outgroup attitudes was indeed due to a reduction of relative ingroup prototypicality. This study shows that just by imagining a typical day of an outgroup member the extent to which one's own group is seen as more prototypical than the outgroup can be decreased. The fact that prototypicality has a mediating role between perspective taking and outgroup attitudes suggests that by taking the perspective of the outgroup, the divergence between in- and outgroups is reduced. The results indicate that ingroup and outgroup might be seen as equally prototypical of the superordinate group after perspective taking. There were no significant differences between the two control conditions (i.e., ingroup and superordinate group perspectives). According to the manipulation check, participants in both conditions responded similarly to the manipulation and wrote about an ingroup member (a young person). Investigating a superordinate group condition within our design provides a further indirect test of the ingroup projection model. It may also inform interpretations of previous studies on perspective taking where only the ingroup's perspectives were used as a control group. Recall that in the superordinate perspective condition, only the superordinate group's perspective is explicitly addressed. In other words, when people are given the opportunity to take the perspective of any member of the superordinate group, they apparently choose the ingroup perspective.

The study was introduced as a survey about people living in Germany. To assess participants' ingroup and outgroup representations, we asked them to rate the ingroup (students) and the outgroup (welfare recipients) on three attributes (i.e., realistic, family oriented, warmhearted) on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all; 7 = very much). Half of the participants were then asked to write an essay about the typical day of a welfare recipient (outgroup perspective condition). The other half of our participants (control condition) was also provided with a writing task to make both conditions as comparable as possible. We chose a neutral topic and asked them to write about the climate in Germany. After the writing task, all participants rated the superordinate group (i.e., people living in Germany) on the same three attributes on which ingroup and outgroup were rated before. Relative ingroup prototypicality was computed based on these attribute ratings in the same way as in Study 1. Outgroup attitudes were assessed with three items (e.g., “Hartz 4 recipients should receive more welfare.”, reverse coded “Hartz 4 recipients receive more support of the government than they deserve.” Cronbachs α = .80). A factor analysis revealed a strong first factor (eigenvalue: 2.14), explaining 71.27% of the variance, on which all items loaded higher than .65. The attitude scale had a mean of M = 4.46, SD = 1.55, with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes. Participants were dismissed and debriefed via email. Note that fewer items were used in this study because space was limited due to the assessment of some other variables that we aimed to consider for exploratory purposes which, however, are not relevant for the present paper.

Study 2 We conducted Study 2 to show that our findings also apply in a different intergroup context. We used the context of “people living in Germany” with “students” as the ingroup and “Hartz 4 recipients” as the outgroup. Hartz 4 recipients are unemployed people that receive a special kind of German social security. Often, those people are judged as poor and lazy. The perspective taking manipulation was similar to the one used in Study 1. Participants (German Students) wrote an essay about a typical day of a welfare recipient (i.e., Hartz 4 recipient). Again, we assessed relative ingroup prototypicality and outgroup attitudes and predicted that relative ingroup prototypicality 4 Shrout and Bolger (2002) argue that mediation can be analyzed by testing if the indirect effect is significantly different from zero. They suggest the use of a bootstrap technique that computes a confidence interval around the product term (a ∗ b). The indirect effect is significant if zero is not included in the interval. Bootstrapping is superior to the Sobel test because Sobel assumes a ∗ b is normally distributed. Especially in small samples, an asymmetrical distribution is often found. The bootstrap interval converges to the actual distribution of the indirect effect. Tests of indirect effects were performed using an SPSSMacro written by Hayes (2009, version 4) based on Preacher and Hayes (2008).

Method Participants and design

Results Relative ingroup prototypicality Participants in the outgroup perspective condition (MOG = 1.00, SDOG = .17) indicated a lower relative ingroup prototypicality than in the control condition (Mcontrol = 1.16, SDcontrol = .33), F(1, 54) = 4.68, p = .04, η2 = .08, d = .61. We also analyzed if the mean values of relative ingroup prototypicality differed from 1. In the control condition the value was above 1, t(28) = 2.55, p = .02, indicating that the ingroup was perceived as more prototypical than the outgroup. In contrast, in the outgroup perspective condition the value was not significantly different from 1, t(25) = 0.01, p = .99. Outgroup attitudes As predicted, participants taking the outgroups' perspective reported significantly more positive attitudes towards the outgroup (MOG = 4.90, SDOG = 1. 49) than participants in the control condition (Mcontrol = 4.07, SDcontrol = 1. 52), F(1, 54) = 4.16, p b .05, η2 = .07, d = .55.

A. Berthold et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (2013) 1034–1041

1039

Mediation hypothesis

Procedure

We again analyzed the mediating role of prototypicality. Perspective condition (coded as − 1 = control; 1 = outgroup perspective) predicted relative ingroup prototypicality, β = − .29, p = .04, and positive outgroup attitudes, β = .27, p b .05. Relative ingroup prototypicality and outgroup attitudes were also significantly related, β = −.47, p b .01. When both perspective taking and relative ingroup prototypicality (mediator) were entered into a regression to predict outgroup attitudes, perspective taking did no longer predict outgroup attitudes, β = .15, p = .25 while relative ingroup prototypicality remained significant, β = −.43, p b .01, R2 = .24, Sobel Z = 1.97, p b .05 (see Fig. 1b). We again used bootstrapping to confirm that the indirect effect of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes via relative ingroup prototypicality was different from zero, b = .38, p b .05, BCa (95%) = [.05, .83].

The study was introduced as an experiment on sense deprivation. Participants completed a questionnaire consisting of two separate parts. In the first part of the questionnaire participants were asked to indicate the extent to which ten attributes applied to the ingroup (young people living in Jena) and the outgroup (elderly people living in Jena) on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). The same ten attributes as in Study 1 were used. Before handing out the second part of our questionnaire, we asked participants to perform different behaviors depending on the experimental condition. The laboratories used for this study were within the psychology department close to a staircase. All participants were asked to walk down the stairs in order to enter their name on a list and to return after signing. Participants within the control condition received no further instructions. Participants in the outgroup perspective condition underwent an age simulation. They were asked to wear gloves (deprivation of the sense of touch), kneepads (restricted movement ability), −7 dioptres glasses (deprivation of the sense of sight), to carry a heavy backpack (restriction of balance) and to put cotton wool in their ears (deprivation of the sense of hearing) before walking downstairs. Additionally, they received a walking stick. To assure that participants did not hurt themselves walking the stairs a student accompanied them. In the second part of the questionnaire all participants were asked to rate the same ten attributes in regard to the superordinate group (people in Jena). These attribute ratings were used to calculate relative ingroup prototypicality. Afterwards, outgroup attitudes were assessed with the same items as in Study 1 (α = .72)6. All items were averaged and the scale had a mean of M = 4.60, SD = .60. Finally, participants were thanked and debriefed via email.

Discussion Study 2 showed the same pattern of results as Study 1. Participants taking the outgroups' perspective indicated less relative ingroup prototypicality and more positive outgroup attitudes than a control group. Again, relative ingroup prototypicality was found to mediate the effect of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes. Study 2 addressed a more stigmatized outgroup (welfare recipients) compared to Study 1 (elderly people). Thus, the results suggest that the mediating role of relative ingroup prototypicality is stable across contexts and independent of the extent of prejudice against the relevant outgroup.

Study 3 In this study we used the same intergroup context as in Study 1 but extended the construct validity of the perspective taking manipulation by using a subtle behavioral simulation. Previous research on perspective taking has mostly used mental simulations of the experience of outgroup members. Thus, it is an open question whether similar effects would be obtained if participants were induced to actually experience reality as an outgroup member would. In the present study, participants, who were all undergraduate students, underwent a behavioral simulation of old age to manipulate perspective taking. We hypothesized that by experiencing the effects of old age, hence by seeing the world through the eyes of an elderly person, participants should show an increase in their positive attitudes towards elderly people and a decrease in relative ingroup prototypicality. Moreover, we predicted that relative ingroup prototypicality should mediate the effect of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes.

Results Relative ingroup prototypicality As expected participants in the outgroup perspective condition indicated a lower relative ingroup prototypicality (MOG = .98, SDOG = .13) than in the control condition (Mcontrol = 1.10, SDcontrol = .16), F(1. 59) = 10.59, p b .01, η2 = .15, d = .82. We also analyzed if the mean values of relative ingroup prototypicality differed significantly from 1. As expected, in the control condition the value was significantly above 1, t(29) = 3.52, p b .01, indicating that the ingroup was perceived as more prototypical than the outgroup. In contrast, in the outgroup perspective condition relative ingroup prototypicality was not significantly different from 1, t(29) = −.81, p = .42.

Outgroup attitudes Method Participants and design Sixty students with an average age of 21.70 years (SD = 3.35, range = 18–34)5 volunteered for this study and received course credit. The 49 female and 11 male students were recruited in university classrooms and via email and were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (perspective: ingroup vs. outgroup). To disguise the age simulation participants were told that the study was conducted to examine sense deprivation and perception. 5 As in Study 1, we ran additional analyses of participants' age as a moderator of the effects of perspective taking. Again, there were no significant interactions of condition and age on relative ingroup prototypicality or on outgroup attitudes, Fprototypicality(1.59) = .68, p = .41, Foutgroup attitudes(1.59) = .23, p = .63.

Participants adopting the perspective of the outgroup reported significantly more positive attitudes towards the outgroup (MOG = 4.81, SDOG = .71) than participants in the control condition (Mcontrol = 4.47, SDcontrol = .53), F(1, 59) = 4.43, p = .04, η2 = .07, d = .54.

6 A factor analysis revealed two strong factors (eigenvalues: 3.21 and 2.20) explaining 22.92% and 15.67% of the variance. The screeplot suggested a two factor solution. Further analyses revealed that all recoded items loaded strongly (N.31) on the second factor. We reanalyzed the data separately for the recoded items and the positively worded items. The results indicate that the perspective taking manipulation had a significant effect on the positively worded scale, F(1.59) = 5.34, p = .02. For the recoded negatively worded scale the effect was in the same direction but failed to be significant, F(1.59) = 1.31, p = .26. Because both scales showed a similar pattern, we decided to use the complete scale for our analyses.

1040

A. Berthold et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (2013) 1034–1041

Mediation hypothesis As in Studies 1 and 2, we examined the mediating role of prototypicality. Perspective taking condition (coded as −1 = control; 1 = outgroup perspective) predicted relative ingroup prototypicality, β = −.39, p b .01, and positive outgroup attitudes, β = .27, p = .04. Relative ingroup prototypicality and outgroup attitudes were again significantly related, β = −.33, p b .01. When perspective condition and prototypicality were entered into a regression to predict outgroup attitudes, perspective condition did no longer predict outgroup attitudes, β = .16, p = .24. Relative ingroup prototypicality, however, remained a significant predictor, β = − .27, p b .05; R2 = .13, Sobel Z = 2.13, p b .05 (see Fig. 1c). We again used bootstrapping (N = 10,000) and found that the indirect effect of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes, mediated through prototypicality, was different from zero, b = .14, p b .05, BCa (95%) = [.01, .38]. Discussion This study used an age simulation to manipulate perspective taking. It was found that having participants undergo a behavioral simulation of old age decreased relative ingroup prototypicality and increased positive outgroup attitudes. Furthermore, the decrease in relative ingroup prototypicality after personally experiencing some of the behavioral and perceptual effects of aging, mediated the effect of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes. The results of this study suggest that the positive effects of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes also emerge when it is not confined to mental simulations of the outgroup perspective but when participants are induced to actually experience reality in similar ways as outgroup members. General discussion The present research studied the underlying mechanisms of perspective taking by applying the ingroup projection model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999). According to this model, negative intergroup relations are a consequence of the divergence of perspectives between ingroup and outgroup. Group members' judgment that their ingroup is more relatively prototypical of a superordinate group is based on an egocentric perspective. Thus, changing the group members' perspective should improve outgroup attitudes. We propose that perspective taking leads to such an alteration. We assumed and found that ingroup members perceived their ingroup as less relatively prototypical after taking the perspective of the outgroup. Moreover, outgroup attitudes were more positive after perspective taking due to the decrease in relative ingroup prototypicality. In Studies 1 and 2 we used an established manipulation, whereas Study 3 was based on a behavioral manipulation of perspective taking. Outgroup attitudes were assessed with a variety of items including stereotypical beliefs, behavioral preferences and liking in order to show that the results hold with different types of measures. Across all studies the effect of perspective taking on positive outgroup attitudes was fully mediated by prototypicality. One might wonder whether our assumptions regarding mediation are met. Both relative ingroup prototypicality and outgroup attitudes were measured rather than manipulated. Thus, it is a legitimate concern that the causal order of these variables might be the reverse, such that perspective taking first improves outgroup attitudes which then reduces relative ingroup prototypicality. We tested this alternative model and found mixed results. In Studies 1 and 2 the results were consistent with outgroup attitudes mediating the effects of perspective taking, but in Study 3 the mediating effect

was only partial7. On the basis of the present data it is, however, not possible to resolve the issue of which comes first, outgroup attitudes or relative ingroup prototypicality (Fiedler, Schott, & Meiser, 2011). The results of a cross-lagged panel study suggest that both causal directions are plausible (Kessler et al., 2010). In this study, relative ingroup prototypicality predicted outgroup attitudes when the authors controlled for previous levels of outgroup attitudes, but the reverse was also true. In line with the larger literature on ingroup projection, which views relative ingroup prototypicality as a determinant of outgroup attitudes (e.g., Wenzel et al., 2007), we decided to present the results with relative ingroup prototypicality as the mediator, but we acknowledge the possibility that causality between ingroup prototypicality and outgroup attitudes may in general be reciprocal (Kessler et al., 2010). Altogether, our research provides substantial evidence that seeing the world through the outgroup's eyes, either by imagining or by actually experiencing the other perspective has a positive influence on intergroup relations that can be explained with a reduction in relative ingroup prototypicality. Thus, we assume that the reduction of relative ingroup prototypicality through perspective taking is a promising possibility to improve outgroup attitudes. Previous research on perspective taking considered several variables that appear to be responsible for the positive effects of perspective taking (Dovidio et al., 2004). One explanation proposed by Galinsky et al. (2005) is that perspective taking induces a self-other overlap which increases perceived similarity between the other and the self. With regard to our research, such a process could have taken place at the intergroup level. Asking ingroup members to take the perspective of the outgroup might have caused an ingroup–outgroup-overlap (i.e., perception of similarities among ingroup and outgroup could have become salient). As a result, the representation of the superordinate group could have been altered consistent with the decrease in relative ingroup prototypicality that we observed. The number of studies discussing potential mediators of perspective taking demonstrates that there might be several processes responsible for the effect. The group membership of the other person, whose perspective was taken, has played a central role in most studies. However, to our knowledge there is a lack of research considering the participants' own group membership. Our research contributes to the research on perspective taking by considering a variable that takes into account both the participants' ingroup identity and the group membership of the other person. This adds to previous findings that addressed the participants' empathy, their approach orientation and their perceived overlap between themselves and the other person (see Batson et al., 1997; Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000; Todd et al., 2011). Altogether, the positive effects of perspective taking seem to be based on cognitive as well as emotional/motivational processes. A study of Hodson, Choma, and Costello (2009) found evidence for the simultaneous operation of both, cognitive and affective mechanisms underlying perspective taking. It remains to be shown in future research considering several mediators at the same time under which circumstances one process or the other might dominate. Galinsky et al. (2005) discussed the possible effects of the “dark and ironic” side that perspective taking can have. They argue that it might impair rather than facilitate social bonds depending on 7 We examined the potential mediating role of outgroup attitudes by additional analyses. In Studies 1 and 2we found that when perspective condition and outgroup attitudes were entered into a regression to predict prototypicality, perspective condition no longer predicted prototypicality, βStudy1 = − .16, p = .13; βStudy2 = − .17, p = .18. The variable outgroup attitudes, however, remained a significant predictor, βStudy1 = − .31, p b .01; βStudy2 = − .43, p b .01. However, in Study 3 both, perspective condition βStudy3 = − .33, p = .01, and outgroup attitudes βStudy3 = − .25, p b .05, independently predicted relative ingroup prototypicality. In other words, even though the potential mediator outgroup attitudes was included in the model, perspective condition remained a highly significant predictor of prototypicality.

A. Berthold et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (2013) 1034–1041

the specific target and the way in which the perspective taking manipulation is undertaken. Therefore, perspective taking should take place under specific preconditions – to prevent (even) more negative reactions, – as was shown for example in the studies of Epley, Caruso, and Bazerman (2006) and also in the research by Vorauer, Martens, and Sasaki (2009). These specific conditions, also regarding ingroup projection, should receive further attention in future studies. One important moderator could be the perceived distance between ingroup and outgroup. In the case of similar subgroups, perspective taking might foster positive intergroup relations (assimilation). On the other hand, if subgroups are very distant from each other, for example regarding their attitudes, perspective taking might lead to more negative reactions because the differences would become more pronounced (contrast). No overlap between ingroup and outgroup is possible and the outgroup members are contrasted away from the ingroup. The ingroup might be perceived as even more relatively prototypical legitimizing a negative treatment of outgroup members. In sum, it appears promising to further investigate the mechanisms and consequences associated with perspective taking. Our research offers a unique approach by combining ingroup projection and perspective taking. The findings clearly show that perspective taking can reduce relative ingroup prototypicality, leading to more positive intergroup attitudes.

References Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173. Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., et al. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.72.1.105. Berthold, A., Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Luecke, B., & Schubert, T. (2012). When different means bad or merely worse. How minimal and maximal goals affect ingroup projection and outgroup attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 682–690. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1878. Dovidio, J. F., ten Vergert, M., Stewart, T. L., Gaertner, S. L., Johnson, J.D., Esses, V. M., et al. (2004). Perspective and prejudice: Antecedents and mediating mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1537–1549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167204271177. Epley, N., Caruso, E. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). When perspective taking increases taking: Reactive egoism in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 872–889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.872. Fiedler, K., Schott, M., & Meiser, T. (2011). What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1231–1236. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.007. Galinsky, A.D., & Ku, G. (2004). The effects of perspective-taking on prejudice: The moderating role of self-evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 594–604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262802. Galinsky, A.D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 8, 109–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430205051060. Galinsky, A.D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and ingroup favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708–724. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.708. Hayes (2009). Indirect (version 4). Computer Software.

1041

Hodson, G., Choma, B.L., & Costello, K. (2009). Experiencing alien-nation: Effects of a simulation intervention on attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 974–978. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.010. Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., Funke, F., Brown, R., Binder, J., Zagefka, H., et al. (2010). We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 985–997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.673. Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI) 1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3b259::AID-EJSP927N3.0.CO;2-F. Ostrom, T. M. (1969). The relationship between the affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of attitude. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 12–30. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/0022-1031(69)90003-1. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879. Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias and social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X. Shih, M., Wang, E., Trahan Bucher, A., & Stotzer, R. (2009). Perspective taking: Reducing prejudice towards general outgroups and specific individuals. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(5), 565–577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1368430209337463. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7.4.422. Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 729–743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00144. Thompson, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(2), 176–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(92)90010-5. Todd, A.R., Bodenhausen, G. V., Richeson, J. A., & Galinsky, A.D. (2011). Perspective taking combats automatic expressions of racial bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1027–1042. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022308. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. Ullrich, J. (2009). Reconsidering the ‘relative’ in relative ingroup prototypicality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 299–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ ejsp.540. Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 455–472. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/ejsp.163. Vorauer, J.D., Martens, V., & Sasaki, S. J. (2009). When trying to understand detracts from trying to behave: Effects of perspective taking in intergroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 811–827. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013411. Waldzus, S., & Mummendey, A. (2004). Inclusion in a superordinate group, in-group prototypicality, and attitudes towards out-groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 466–477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.003. Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (2005). When “different” means “worse”: In-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 76–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.05.006. Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Böttcher, F. (2004). Of bikers, teachers and Germans: Groups' diverging views about their prototypicality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 385–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/0144666042037944. Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Weber, U. (2003). Towards tolerance: Representations of superordinate categories and perceived ingroup prototypicality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 31–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S00221031(02)00507-3. Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463280701728302. Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., Weber, U., & Waldzus, S. (2003). The ingroup as pars pro toto: Projection from the in-group onto the inclusive category as a precursor to social discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 461–473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250913.