Final reaction paper ANN HARRIS

http://spp.sagepub.com/ Social Psychological and Personality Science

http://spp.sagepub.com/content/5/4/430 The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1948550613504968

2014 5: 430 originally published online 26 September 2013Social Psychological and Personality Science Cynthia S. Wang, Gillian Ku, Kenneth Tai and Adam D. Galinsky

Negative and Positive Targets Stupid Doctors and Smart Construction Workers: Perspective-Taking Reduces Stereotyping of Both

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Personality and Social Psychology

Association for Research in Personality

European Association of Social Psychology

Society of Experimental and Social Psychology

can be found at:Social Psychological and Personality ScienceAdditional services and information for

http://spp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://spp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Sep 26, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Apr 9, 2014Version of Record >>

at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on November 26, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on November 26, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Article

Stupid Doctors and Smart Construction Workers: Perspective-Taking Reduces Stereotyping of Both Negative and Positive Targets

Cynthia S. Wang 1 , Gillian Ku

2 , Kenneth Tai

3 , and Adam D. Galinsky

4

Abstract

Numerous studies have found that perspective-taking reduces stereotyping and prejudice, but they have only involved negative stereotypes. Because target negativity has been empirically confounded with reduced stereotyping, the general effects of perspective-taking on stereotyping and prejudice are unclear. By including both positively and negatively stereotyped targets, this research offers the first empirical test of two competing hypotheses: The positivity hypothesis predicts that perspective-taking pro- duces a positivity bias, with less stereotyping of negative targets but more stereotyping of positive targets. In contrast, the stereotype-reduction hypothesis predicts that perspective-taking reduces stereotyping, regardless of target valence. Three studies support the stereotype-reduction hypothesis. Perspective-taking also produced less positive attitudes toward positive targets, with reduced stereotyping mediating this effect. A final study demonstrated that perspective-taking reduced all stereotyping because it increased self–other overlap. These findings help answer fundamental questions about perspective-taking’s effects and processes, and provide evidence that perspective-taking does not improve attitudes invariantly.

Keywords

prejudice/stereotyping, intergroup relations, perspective-taking, self/identity, self-esteem

Social theorists have long identified perspective-taking and

theory-of-mind capacities as critical for navigating one’s social

world (Mead, 1934; Piaget, 1932; Smith, 1759). Perspective-

taking, or understanding the world from another’s vantage

point, has been linked to the development of cognitive (Piaget,

1932) and moral reasoning (Selman, 1980), as well as to altru-

ism (Batson, 1991), cooperation (Batson & Moran, 1999), and

conflict resolution (Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008).

In contrast, deficiencies in perspective-taking contribute to

social dysfunction (Baron-Cohen, 1995) and aggressive retalia-

tion (Richardson, Hammock, Smith, Gardner, & Signo, 1994).

Perspective-taking has also been recognized as a method for

improving intergroup relations (Galinsky, Ku, & Wang, 2005).

Perspective-taking consistently decreases stereotyping and pre-

judice (Batson et al., 1997; Galinsky & Ku, 2004; Galinsky &

Moskowitz, 2000; Ku, Wang, & Galinsky, 2010; Todd, Boden-

hausen, Richeson, & Galinsky, 2011; Vescio, Sechrist, &

Paolucci, 2003) and helps to smooth the cogs of interracial

interaction (Todd et al., 2011).

Prior research on perspective-taking’s effects on stereotyp-

ing and prejudice has only examined negative targets, group

members stereotypically defined by negative traits. Because

stereotyping and target valence have been confounded empiri-

cally, a fundamental unanswered question is whether

perspective-taking (a) produces a positivity bias (i.e., less

stereotyping of negative targets but more stereotyping of

positive targets) or (b) reduces stereotyping more broadly

(i.e., perspective-takers see positive and negative targets as less

stereotypical). By examining how perspective-taking affects

the stereotyping of both positive and negative targets, we pres-

ent the first empirical test of whether perspective-taking

increases positivity or reduces stereotyping. In doing so, we

shed light on fundamental questions around perspective-tak-

ing’s effects, mechanism, and effectiveness in improving inter-

group conflict.

1 Department of Management, Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State

University, Stillwater, OK, USA 2 London Business School, London, UK

3 Singapore Management University, Singapore, Singapore

4 Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Cynthia S. Wang, Department of Management, Spears School of Business,

Oklahoma State University, 219 Business Building, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Social Psychological and Personality Science 2014, Vol. 5(4) 430-436 ª The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1948550613504968 spps.sagepub.com

at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on November 26, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The Positivity Hypothesis

Perspective-taking has been found to be a key driver of building

and maintaining social bonds (Galinsky et al., 2005). For exam-

ple, perspective-taking increases empathy (Cialdini, Brown,

Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997), leads to approach (Myers &

Hodges, 2011; Todd et al., 2011), increases satisfaction (Blatt,

LeLacheur, Galinsky, Simmens, & Greenberg, 2010; Galinsky,

Wang, & Ku, 2008), and facilitates social coordination (Galinsky,

Wang, & Ku, 2008; Laurent & Myers, 2011). Perspective-taking

also reduces stereotyping and improves intergroup attitudes

(Batson et al., 1997; Galinsky & Ku, 2004; Ku et al., 2010; Todd

et al., 2011; Vescio et al., 2003). Given these diverse benefits,

Galinsky et al. (2005) suggested that perspective-taking is geared

toward creating and maintaining social bonds. Building off this

conceptual model and past research, one could conclude that

perspective-taking produces an overall positivity effect, with

perspective-taking consistently decreasing stereotyping.

However, this conclusion is premature because existing tests

of perspective-taking’s effects on stereotyping and prejudice have

only involved negative targets. The positivity hypothesis predicts

that perspective-taking will result in more stereotyping of and

more positive attitudes toward positive targets. Together then, the

positivity hypothesis suggests that perspective-takers will see neg-

ative targets less stereotypically but positive targets more stereo-

typically, both of which will result in more positive attitudes.

The Stereotype-Reduction Hypothesis

Considering perspective-taking’s mechanism—self-anchor-

ing—offers insight into why perspective-taking may decrease

stereotyping regardless of target valence. During perspective-

taking, the self is applied to the target, causing the target to

become more ‘‘self-like’’ (Davis, Conklin, Smith, & Luce,

1996; Galinsky et al., 2005; Todd & Burgmer, 2013).

Past research has found that this self-anchoring process leads

perspective-takers to decrease their stereotyping of negative

targets (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000). Because individuals

generally view themselves positively (Miller & Ross, 1975;

Taylor & Brown, 1988), perspective-takers predominantly

apply positive self-descriptors to a negative target, thereby

decreasing stereotyping of and prejudice toward that target and

their group (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000). This suggests that

reduced stereotyping of negative targets requires a positive

self-concept. Consistent with this argument, Galinsky and Ku

(2004) found that perspective-takers’ judgments of negative tar-

gets did not improve when perspective-takers had temporarily or

chronically low self-esteem (see also Todd and Burgmer, 2013,

for a replication using implicit measures).

Perspective-taking’s self-anchoring processes may explain why

perspective-taking will reduce all stereotyping. Because self-

descriptors are applied to the target during perspective-taking and

because a group’s stereotype is likely to be more extreme (more

positive or negative) than one’s self, negative targets become less

negative (as previously demonstrated), but positive targets should

become less positive—self-anchoring processes will result in less

positive self-descriptors being applied to the positive target. Over-

all, the stereotype-reduction hypothesis predicts that perspective-

taking will reduce stereotyping of both negative and positive

targets, resulting in more positive attitudes toward negative targets,

but less positive attitudes toward positive targets.

Overview

To examine whether perspective-taking has a positivity effect or

reduces stereotyping more generally, we considered both positive

and negative targets to directly test two competing hypotheses: If

perspective-taking has a positivity effect, perspective-takers will

stereotype negative targets less, stereotype positive targets more,

and exhibit more favorable attitudes toward both. However, if

perspective-taking has a stereotype-reduction effect, perspective-

taking will decrease stereotyping of both negative and positive tar-

gets, with the ironic effect of improving attitudes toward negative

targets but deteriorating attitudes toward positive targets.

Study 1: Stereotype Reduction

Study 1 examined the competing hypotheses of increased posi-

tivity versus stereotype-reduction using a positive (doctor) and

negative (laborer) target. 1

We chose these two groups because,

as our pretest will show, a number of traits are stereotypical of

doctors but counterstereotypical of laborers (e.g., doctors are

viewed as smart but laborers as unintelligent).

Study 1 used an individual difference measure of perspective-

taking tendencies. Both competing hypotheses predict that

perspective-takers will see laborers as smarter. However,

whereas the positivity hypothesis predicts a positive relationship

between perspective-taking tendencies and judging the doctor as

smarter, the stereotype-reduction hypothesis predicts a negative

relationship (i.e., the doctor will be judged as less smart).

Study 1 also compared perspective-taking to empathic con-

cern because these two constructs are often studied together

(e.g., Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Davis, 1980; Galinsky et al.,

2008) and fall under an umbrella construct of interpersonal con-

cern (Davis, 1980). Since there is evidence that the effects of

perspective-taking on intergroup attitudes are partially mediated

by empathy (Vescio et al., 2003), it is important to show that

perspective-taking has effects above and beyond empathy.

Other research has found that perspective-taking and empa-

thy have differential effects in interpersonal interactions. For

instance, individual differences in perspective-taking tenden-

cies are better predictors of interpersonal behaviors such as

mimicking and negotiation behavior than are individual differ-

ences in empathic concern (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Galinsky

et al., 2008). Most germane to our current investigation, both

perspective-taking and empathy result in increased self–other

overlap (Batson et al., 1997; Galinsky et al., 2008), but more

so for perspective-taking than for empathy (Batson et al.,

1997). Given that self–other overlap is a central mechanism

in perspective-taking induced stereotype reduction, we

expected perspective-taking to matter more than empathy if the

stereotype-reduction hypothesis is correct.

Wang et al. 431

at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on November 26, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Method

Pretest

To pretest positive traits that are stereotypic of doctors but

counterstereotypic of laborers, 30 participants were randomly

assigned to consider doctors or laborers and rated whether a

number of traits were typical of that group (7-point scales).

We selected traits as stereotypical if they were rated signifi-

cantly above the scale’s midpoint and counterstereotypical if

they were significantly below the midpoint (Galinsky et al.,

2008). Additionally, participants rated the valence of the traits

(5-point scales). Traits were considered positive (or negative) if

they were rated significantly above (or below) the scale’s mid-

point. Participants also indicated how favorable society’s view

is of doctors or laborers (7-point scales). Targets were consid-

ered positive (or negative) if they were rated significantly

above (or below) the scale’s midpoint.

Doctors were seen as stereotypically analytical, passionate,

smart, and thoughtful, t(14)’s > 3.86, p’s < .003, but laborers

stereotypically lacked these traits, t(14)’s > 2.45, p’s < .03. These

traits were seen as positive, t(29)’s > 8.84, p’s < .001. Finally,

doctors were viewed positively, t(14) ¼ 9.37, p < .001, whereas laborers were viewed negatively, t(14) ¼ 6.21, p < .001.

Participants and Design

Fifty-three Singaporean undergraduates (24 women, 19 men,

and 10 unreported) were randomly assigned to a doctor or laborer

target condition. 2

We measured participants’ perspective-taking

and empathic tendencies.

Procedure

Using Mazzocco, Rucker, Galinsky, and Anderson’s (2012)

paradigm, participants were told that they would receive a ran-

domly chosen set of demographic details (age, occupation, etc.)

and would write about a day in the life of that person. Partici-

pants received identical demographic information between

conditions except for the target’s occupation, which was either

a doctor or a laborer. Participants were asked to write in the

third person (using ‘‘he,’’ ‘‘she,’’ and ‘‘they’’) to capture how

natural variations in perspective-taking tendencies relate to

stereotyping (see Galinsky et al., 2008).

Trait Ratings. After a filler task, participants rated how well the four pretested traits (analytical, passionate, smart, and thought-

ful) described doctors or laborers (a ¼ .87, 7-point scales).

Perspective-Taking and Empathic Tendencies. Participants then completed two subscales from Davis’ (1980) Interpersonal Reac-

tivity Index (5-point scales): the 7-item perspective-taking sub-

scale (e.g., ‘‘I sometimes try to understand my friends better by

imagining how things look from their perspective,’’ a¼ .52) and the 6-item empathy subscale (e.g., ‘‘I often have tender,

concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me,’’ a ¼ .66).

Results

The positivity hypothesis predicts that both doctors and

laborers will be seen as analytical, and so on, resulting in a pos-

itive relationship between perspective-taking tendencies and

trait ratings that is not moderated by target. The stereotype-

reduction hypothesis predicts an interaction: a positive rela-

tionship between perspective-taking tendencies and trait

ratings for laborers, but a negative relationship for doctors.

To test our model, we used a stepwise regression procedure

with perspective-taking tendencies (mean-centered), empathic

tendencies (mean-centered), and target as independent

variables. On the first step, we entered the main effects. There

was a significant effect of target, b ¼ 2.14, standard error (SE) ¼ .22, t(52) ¼ 9.66, p < .001, with doctors seen as more analytical, and so on, than laborers. The other main effects

were not significant, t(52)’s < .53, p’s > .60. On the second

step, we entered the two-way interactions. Only the

Perspective-taking Tendencies � Target interaction was significant, b ¼�1.64, SE ¼ .51, t(52) ¼�3.20, p ¼ .002. The other two-way interactions were not significant, t(52)’s < .92,

p’s > .36. On the third step, we entered the three-way interac-

tion, which was not significant, t(52) ¼�.82, p ¼ .42. In deconstructing the Perspective-taking Tendencies � Tar-

get interaction, simple slope analyses revealed that participants

with greater perspective-taking tendencies viewed the laborer

as more analytical, passionate, smart, and thoughtful,

b ¼ .95, SE ¼ .36, t(52) ¼ 2.64, p ¼ .01, but viewed the doctor as marginally less analytical, passionate, smart, and thoughtful,

b ¼�.69, SE ¼ .36, t(52) ¼�1.91, p ¼ .06 (see Figure 1). The results supported the stereotype-reduction hypothesis:

Perspective-taking tendencies reduced stereotyping of both

negative and positive targets. Additionally, these effects were

unique to perspective-taking and not empathic concern, provid-

ing further evidence that they have different effects (e.g., Char-

trand & Bargh, 1999; Galinsky et al., 2008). The fact that

perspective-taking matters more than empathy also supports

our hypothesis that self–other overlap and self-anchoring are

key processes in driving perspective-taking effects (Batson

et al., 1997; Galinsky et al., 2005).

Despite the insights that Study 1 provide, the correlational

design makes reverse causality a potential problem. As such,

Studies 2 and 3 rely on manipulations of perspective-taking to

establish a causal link between perspective-taking and reduced

stereotyping.

Study 2: Attitudinal Consequences of Reduced Stereotyping of a Positive Target

If perspective-taking has a positivity effect, perspective-takers

should have more favorable attitudes toward both negative and

positive targets. However, consistent with Study 1 and the

stereotype-reduction hypothesis, perspective-taking may ironi-

cally result in less favorable attitudes toward positive targets

because of reduced stereotyping. Using the positive target of

engineers, Study 2 tested whether perspective-taking would

432 Social Psychological and Personality Science 5(4)

at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on November 26, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

reduce stereotyping, which would then result in less positive

attitudes toward that target group.

Method

Pretest

A pretest established that engineers were seen as stereoty-

pically hardworking, intelligent, and logical, t(17)’s > 2.96,

p’s � .01. These traits were seen as positive, t(17)’s > 3.52, p’s � .001. Additionally, engineers were seen as positive tar- gets, t(17) ¼ 4.57, p < .001.

Participants and Design

Forty-seven individuals (30 women and 17 men) recruited

through a European behavioral laboratory were randomly

assigned to a perspective-taking versus a control condition.

Procedure

As in Study 1, participants were given demographic details of a

target person (an engineer) and asked to write about this target.

Perspective-Taking Manipulation. Participants in the control condi- tion wrote about the target in the third person whereas those in

the perspective-taking condition wrote in first person (using

‘‘I’’ or ‘‘we;’’ Mazzocco, Rucker, Galinsky, & Anderson, 2012).

Trait Ratings. After a filler task, participants rated how well the traits hardworking, intelligent, and logical described engineers

in general (a ¼ .81, 7-point scales).

Attitudes. Using a feelings thermometer (Dasgupta & Green- wald, 2001; Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2004), participants

were presented with an image of a thermometer and indicated

their attitudes toward engineers with higher ratings indicating

more positive attitudes (10-point scale).

Results

Trait Ratings

Perspective-takers (M ¼ 5.31, standard deviation [SD] ¼ .91) viewed engineers as less hardworking, intelligent, and logical

than control participants (M ¼ 6.28, SD ¼ .62), t(45) ¼ 4.26, p < .001, d ¼ 1.24.

Attitudes

Perspective-takers (M ¼ 6.33, SD ¼ 1.40) felt less positively toward engineers than control participants (M ¼ 7.43, SD ¼ 1.67), t(45) ¼ 2.45, p ¼ .02, d ¼ .72.

We tested if stereotyping mediated the effects of

perspective-taking on attitudes by simultaneously regressing

attitudes on perspective-taking and trait ratings. Trait ratings

predicted attitudes (b ¼ .72, SE ¼ .28, p ¼ .01) and perspective-taking was no longer significant (b ¼ �.40, SE ¼ .50, p ¼ .43; see Figure 2); a 5,000 samples bootstrap pro- cedure yielded a 95% bias-corrected interval of [�1.35, �.15].

Thus, Study 2 found that perspective-takers viewed engi-

neers less stereotypically, which resulted in less positive atti-

tudes toward them. Although these findings are consistent

with the stereotype-reduction hypothesis, we should caution

that the effect of perspective-taking on attitudes could have

been inflated because participants filled out the traits ratings

just before the attitudes measure. Overall, Study 2 replicated

Study 1’s effects and provides causal confirmation that

perspective-taking reduces stereotyping.

Study 3: Perspective-Taking’s Self-Anchoring Processes Drive Stereotype-Reduction

We have suggested that perspective-taking’s self-anchoring pro-

cesses explain why perspective-taking reduces all stereotyping.

Because perspective-taking involves self-descriptors being

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low (–1SD) High (+1SD)

Tr ai

t R

a� n

gs (A

n al

y� ca

l, P

as si

o n

at e,

S m

ar t,

T h

o u

gh �

u l)

Perspec�ve-taking tendencies

Laborer

Doctor

Figure 1. Interaction effect of perspective-taking tendencies and target on trait ratings in Study 1. High and low levels of perspective- taking tendencies represent one standard deviation above and below the mean, respectively.

*p <.05, ***p < .001

Perspective-taking

Trait Ratings –.54*** .47** (.41*)

–.34* (–.13NS) Attitudes

Figure 2. Trait ratings mediate the effects of perspective-taking on attitudes in Study 2. Numbers represent standardized regression coefficients and numbers in parentheses represent simultaneous regression coefficients.

Wang et al. 433

at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on November 26, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

applied to the target and because a group’s stereotype is often

more extreme than one’s self, perspective-taking renders nega-

tive targets less negative but positive targets less positive.

In support of perspective-taking’s self-anchoring processes,

Galinsky and Ku (2004) and Todd and Burgmer (2013) found

that perspective-taking only decreased prejudice toward nega-

tive targets when perspective-takers had high self-esteem.

Extending this logic, Study 3 manipulated target valence and

perspective-taking and measured self-esteem. We expected

perspective-takers to stereotype negative targets less than con-

trol participants, but only when they had high self-esteem (a

conceptual replication of Galinsky & Ku, 2004 and Todd &

Burgmer, 2013). We predicted a novel effect for positive tar-

gets: Perspective-takers would stereotype positive targets less

than control participants, but only when they had low self-

esteem. Low self-esteem would lead participants to apply neg-

ative self-descriptors to the positive target, which would reduce

the perception of positive stereotypic traits.

Method

Participants and Design

Ninety-six participants (52 women and 44 men) were recruited

via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The study had a 2 (condition:

perspective-taking vs. control) � 2 (target: doctor vs. construc- tion worker) between-participants design. Additionally, we mea-

sured self-esteem.

Manipulations

Participants wrote an essay about a day in the life of either a

doctor or a construction worker (i.e., Study 1’s targets), using

either the first person (perspective-taking condition) or the

third person (control condition).

Trait Ratings. After a filler task, participants rated how well the four traits from Study 1—analytical, passionate, smart, and

thoughtful—described doctors or construction workers (a¼ .75).

Self-Esteem. Finally, participants completed Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item trait self-esteem scale (e.g., ‘‘I take a positive attitude

toward myself,’’ a ¼ .93, 4-point scales).

Results

A 2 (condition) � 2 (target) analysis of variance revealed a sig- nificant interaction, F(92) ¼ 7.14, p ¼ .009. Perspective-takers (M ¼ 4.18, SD ¼ .83) viewed laborers as more analytical, passionate, smart, and thoughtful than control participants

(M ¼ 3.70, SD ¼ .88), t(92) ¼ 2.05, p ¼ .04, d ¼ .57. However, perspective-takers (M ¼ 5.39, SD ¼ .91) viewed the doctor as marginally less stereotypical than control participants

(M ¼ 5.80, SD ¼ .65), t(92) ¼ 1.73, p ¼ .09, d ¼ .52. Importantly, a regression revealed a Significant Condition �

Target � Self-esteem interaction, b ¼ 1.13, SE ¼ .55, t(90) ¼ 2.04, p ¼ .04. We looked at the conditional effects of

perspective-taking on trait ratings (Hayes, 2012; see

Figure 3A and B). When self-esteem was high (þ1 SD above the mean), perspective-takers judged construction workers

more positively than control participants, b ¼ .88, SE ¼ .29, t(88) ¼ 3.05, p ¼ .003, but not when the target was a doctor, b ¼ .05, SE ¼ .28, t(88) ¼ .19, p ¼ .85. However, when self- esteem was low (�1 SD below the mean), perspective-takers judged doctors less positively than control participants,

b ¼ .85, SE ¼ .29, t(88) ¼ 2.90, p ¼ .005, but not when the tar- get was a construction worker, B ¼ .09, SE ¼ .29, t(88) ¼ .30, p ¼ .77. These findings support our stereotype-reduction hypothesis and perspective-taking’s self-anchoring processes.

General Discussion

Past studies have found that perspective-taking reduces stereo-

typing and improves attitudes, but these studies have all involved

negative targets. By empirically disentangling stereotyping from

target negativity, the current research examined whether

perspective-taking results in a positivity bias or reduces stereo-

typing more broadly. Using both negative and positive targets,

and both measures and manipulations of perspective-taking,

we found support for the stereotype-reduction hypothesis. Stud-

ies 1 and 3 demonstrated that perspective-taking reduces stereo-

typing, regardless of target valence. Study 2 found that reduced

stereotyping mediated perspective-taking’s effects on poorer

attitudes toward positive targets. Finally, Study 3 found that per-

spective-taking’s effects on reducing stereotyping depends on

the perspective-taker’s self-esteem, thereby providing further

evidence of perspective-taking’s self-anchoring mechanism.

The current findings contribute to the literature by examining a

factor—positive targets—completely missing from prior research.

In doing so, we provide concrete evidence for the cognitive pro-

cess of self-anchoring as perspective-taking’s central mechanism

in stereotype reduction. Because perspective-takers apply self-

descriptors to the target and the target group, when a group’s

stereotypes are more positive than the self, this self-anchoring can

ironically result in less positive views toward that group (i.e., dum-

ber doctors and less positive attitudes toward them).

It is worth acknowledging, however, that the current studies

focused on positive targets who are primarily high on

competence-related traits (e.g., analytical and hardworking)

rather than warmth-related traits (e.g., sociable and good-nat-

ured). As such, a question for future research is whether our

stereotype-reduction hypothesis holds for stereotypically warm

targets (e.g., would perspective-takers see nurses as less nurtur-

ing?). More generally, to understand whether perspective-taking

will result in less stereotyping of positive targets, one needs to

know the discrepancy between the positivity of a particular indi-

vidual’s self-evaluations and the positivity of the stereotype.

Consistent with Galinsky et al.’s (2005) theorizing, our find-

ings add to a growing line of research demonstrating that

perspective-taking is not a panacea for reducing all social bias.

For instance, in competitive contexts, perspective-takers

behave more egoistically by taking more resources (Epley,

Caruso, & Bazerman, 2006) and act more unethically (Pierce,

434 Social Psychological and Personality Science 5(4)

at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on November 26, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kilduff, Galinsky, & Sivanathan, 2013). Perspective-takers are

also more likely to stereotype clearly stereotype-consistent out-

group members (Skorinko & Sinclair, 2013). Furthermore, for

individuals highly identified with their in-group, perspective-

taking can increase stereotyping and prejudice (Tarrant, Calitri,

& Weston, 2012). The current research similarly points to a

dark side to perspective-taking: more negative attitudes

toward positive targets when perspective-takers have low

self-esteem. Indeed, our findings and recent research suggest that

perspective-taking is most effective at reducing stereotyping and

prejudice when perspective-takers have chronically or temporar-

ily elevated self-esteem (Galinsky & Ku, 2004; Todd & Burgmer,

2013).

Conclusion

By finding that perspective-takers see doctors as less analyti-

cal, passionate, smart, and thoughtful, the current research sup-

ports the stereotype-reduction hypothesis and confirms

perspective-taking’s self-anchoring processes in a novel con-

text. In so doing, it presents some cautionary tales for

perspective-taking’s effectiveness as a social strategy while

also opening up new avenues of research on perspective-

taking that focus on positively stereotyped targets.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-

ship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

1. We used the terms laborer and construction worker to refer to the

same target group in Studies 1 and 3, respectively. We did so

because they are the commonly used term specific to each local

population.

2. We used three criteria for excluding participants in the article: (1) par-

ticipants who failed an attention check question, (2) participants who

were uncomfortable communicating in English (the language used in

our studies), and (3) participants who completed the survey too

quickly or too slowly, given the suggested time allotment and median

completion times. Using these criteria, data from 11 participants in

Study 1 were excluded because the survey was not completed within

the time allotted; data from 3 participants in Study 2 were excluded

because they were not comfortable communicating in English; and

data from 26 participants in Study 3 were excluded because of all three

criteria. The high number of exclusions in Study 3 was the result of the

study being collected via Mechanical Turk (vs. a laboratory setting),

which in our experience, is more likely to include participants who do

not pay attention or rush through the studies.

References

Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and the-

ory of mind. Boston, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Towards a social-

psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Batson, C. D., & Moran, T. (1999). Empathy-induced altruism in a

prisoner’s dilemma. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29,

909–924.

Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H.,

Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L.

(1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stig-

matized group improve feelings towards the group. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 72, 105–118.

Blatt, B., LeLacheur, S. F., Galinsky, A. D., Simmens, S. J., &

Greenberg, L. (2010). Does perspective-taking increase patient

satisfaction in medical encounters? Academic Medicine, 85,

1445–1452.

Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The

perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910.

Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L.

(1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When

one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 73, 481–494.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low (-1SD) High (+1SD)

Tr ai

t R

a� n

gs A

n al

y� ca

l, P

as si

o n

at e,

S m

ar t,

T h

o u

gh �

u l

Self-esteem

Construc�on Worker

Perspec�ve-taking

Control

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low (-1SD) High (+1SD)

Tr ai

t R

a� n

gs A

n al

y� ca

l, P

as si

o n

at e,

S m

ar t,

T h

o u

gh �

u l

Self-esteem

Doctor

Perspec�ve-taking

Control

Figures 3. A and B. Interaction effect of condition, target, and self-esteem on trait ratings in Study 3. High and low levels of self-esteem represent one standard deviation above and below the mean, respectively.

Wang et al. 435

at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on November 26, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Dasgupta, N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). On the malleability of auto-

matic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of

admired and disliked individuals. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 81, 800–814.

Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual dif-

ferences in empathy. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychol-

ogy, 10, 85.

Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of

perspective-taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A

merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 70, 713–726.

Epley, N., Caruso, E. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). When perspective-

taking increases taking: Reactive egoism in social interaction. Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 872–889.

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.

Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking and

self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social

coordination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8,

109–124.

Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008).

Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differen-

tial effects of perspective-taking and empathy in strategic interac-

tions. Psychological Science, 19, 378–384.

Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking:

Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and

in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

78, 708–724.

Galinsky, A. D., Wang, C. S., & Ku, G. (2008). Perspective-takers

behave more stereotypically. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 95, 404–419.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). Process: A versatile computational tool for

observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process

modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/

public/process2012.pdf

Hugenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2004). Ambiguity in social

categorizations: The role of prejudice and facial affect in race cate-

gorization. Psychological Science, 15, 342–345.

Ku, G., Wang, C. S., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Perception through a

perspective-taking lens: Differential effects on judgment and

behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46,

792–798.

Laurent, S. M., & Myers, M. W. (2011). I know you’re me, but who

am I? Perspective taking and seeing the other in the self. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1316–1319.

Mazzocco, P. J., Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Anderson, E. T.

(2012). Direct and vicarious conspicuous consumption: Identifica-

tion with low-status goods increases the desire for high-status

goods. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 520–528.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Uni-

versity Press.

Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribu-

tion of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82,

213–225.

Myers, M. W., & Hodges, S. D. (2011). The structure of self-other

overlap and its relationship to perspective taking. Personal Rela-

tionships, 19, 663–679.

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London, England:

Kegan Paul.

Pierce, J. R., Kilduff, G. J., Galinsky, A. D., & Sivanathan, N. (2013).

From glue to gasoline: How competition turns perspective-takers

unethical. Psychological Science. doi: 10.1177/0956797613

482144

Richardson, R., Hammock, G. S., Smith, S. M., Gardner, W., &

Signo, M. (1994). Empathy as a cognitive inhibitor of interper-

sonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 275–289.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding.

New York, NY: Academic Press.

Skorinko, J. L., & Sinclair, S. A. (2013). Perspective taking can

increase stereotyping: The role of apparent stereotype confirma-

tion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 10–18.

Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments. Indianapolis, IN:

Liberty Press.

Tarrant, M., Calitri, R., & Weston, D. (2012). Social identification

structures the effects of perspective taking. Psychological Science,

23, 973–978.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social

psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulle-

tin, 103, 193–210.

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.

Todd, A. R., & Burgmer, P. (2013). Perspective taking and automatic

intergroup evaluation change: Testing an associative self-

anchoring account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

104, 786–802.

Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective-

taking and prejudice reduction: The meditational role of empathy

arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 33, 455–472.

Author Biographies

Cynthia Wang is an Assistant Professor at the Spears School of Busi-

ness at Oklahoma State University. She studies social diversity, cul-

ture, and ethical decision-making.

Gillian Ku is an Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour at

London Business School. Her broad areas of research interests are

in decision making biases, negotiations, auctions, and intergroup

relations.

Kenneth Tai is an Assistant Professor at the Singapore Management

University. He studies social exclusion and envy at the workplace.

Adam Galinsky is the Vikram S. Pandit Professor of Business at the

Columbia Business School at Columbia University. His research and

teaching focus on power, diversity, negotiations, and ethics.

436 Social Psychological and Personality Science 5(4)

at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on November 26, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from