Let’s Take a Ride on This Pavement!

In the famous science fiction story “The Sentry” by Fredrick Brown, we read about a war against cruel, loathsome, repugnant monsters. But proceeding with the reading, we gradually understand that the monster, the enemy against whom an atrocious war is being fought, is actually man: the point of view is that of the alien, for whom man is a monstrous creature, with only two arms and two legs, with a nauseating white skin without scales. This sudden twist completely changes our way of seeing things, as it forces us to take another perspective.

My colleagues and I had a similar opportunity to change our way of considering things around us, not through the reading of a story, but stepping onto a path that reproduced a real pavement while occupying a wheelchair. Indeed, we wanted to examine if such a perspective-taking task could change an individual’s way of looking at people with disability and other stigmatized groups. We were also interested in determining if getting around in the wheelchair in the presence of a person with disability could be more effective than having the same experience without the presence of a person with disability.

Perspective taking, or the capacity to consider the world from another individual’s viewpoint, allows a person to understand how a situation appears to someone else. It is a method that can be used to encourage people to imagine the suffering of a disadvantaged or stigmatized person. In a standard perspective-taking task, participants are introduced to an individual group member either directly or indirectly—for instance, by reading a vignette, watching a video clip, listening to an audio recording, watching a photographed person, or experiencing or observing a virtual simulation experience. In our study, as we said above, nondisabled participants were asked to navigate in a wheelchair on a path that reproduced a real pavement, so they could experience directly the difficulties that people with disabilities encounter every day along any city street. In order to recreate these difficulties, along the entire pavement there were obstacles to avoid: a road sign and a bike parked right next to it. They had to avoid hitting the overhang of a window and other obstacles, such as holes and irregular shapes of the pavement. Finally, the participants were forced to get off the pavement from its highest part, due to a car parked right near the ramp for the disabled. Before and after this experience, they took part in a group discussion about equality/diversity, ability/disability, and judgment/prejudice facilitated by a psychologist and an educator.

Over 400 students in four different high schools and one middle school in Florence (Italy) were our study participants. They were divided into three groups: in one group the experience on the pavement was facilitated by some professionals without disabilities, while in another group this experience took place in the presence of Mauro, a person in a wheelchair who was a facilitator during the different activities. In the control condition, participants did not take part in any activities related to wheelchairs or disabilities.

As we expected, the perspective-taking experience did have an impact on attitudes. Students who had the experience of the pavement in the presence of Mauro showed more positive attitudes afterwards towards people with disabilities than those in the control group. Also, empathy and intended contact were higher among students who had maneuvered the wheelchair in the presence of Mauro compared to the ones who had the same experience accompanied by people who had no disability.  

One of the most important findings was that the change in participants’ willingness to have contact with people with disabilities actually lasted over two weeks after the study was over. Thus, to take the perspective of an outgroup while interacting with an outgroup member is more effective in reducing prejudice than taking the perspective of an outgroup without actually meeting any of its members. It seems that experiencing the problems and difficulties found by people with disabilities without meeting them is not sufficient to view them more favorably. Rather, such an experience could be unsuccessful if it is not made more concrete through the actual presence of a person with disability. This presence motivates individuals to truly take the perspective of others.

Surprisingly, however, even though navigating in the wheelchair with non-disabled companions was almost ineffective in reducing prejudice toward people with disabilities, it did have some positive collateral effects. Indeed, perspective taking with both disabled and non-disabled companions reduced prejudice toward secondary groups that were not directly mentioned during the intervention: immigrants and homosexuals. Even more interesting, these effects persisted at a later date.

The present study was the first showing that perspective taking with a member of the outgroup (in our case Mauro, who was also in a wheelchair) can be more effective that perspective taking without a member of the outgroup in reducing prejudice toward people with disabilities, even though perspective taking in the latter situation can also do some good. So, when you read a story, step onto a pavement, or what else, try to look at things from a different perspective. Even better, do it with someone who can show you directly what their perspective on things is.


For Further Reading

Matera, C., Nerini, A., Di Gesto, C., Policardo, G. R., Maratia, F., Dalla Verde, S., Sica, I., Paradisi, M., Ferraresi, L, Pontvik, D. K., Lamuraglia, M., Marchese, F., Sbrillo, M., & Brown, R. (2021). Put yourself in my wheelchair: Perspective‐taking can reduce prejudice toward people with disabilities and other stigmatized groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12734
 

Camilla Matera is Associate Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Florence, Italy. Attitudes and intergroup relations are among her main research interests.

 

Generation Empathy: The Surprising Surge of Compassion in Modern Youth

"The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves." – Peter the Hermit (1050 – 1115 AD)

Throughout history, each generation of adults has complained about the youth of their day. This complaint found support in research by Dr. Sara Konrath and colleagues, which noted a decline in empathic traits among U.S. undergraduates from 1979 to 2009. Simultaneously, self-centered traits like narcissism and individualism rose, painting a bleak picture of an increasingly self-absorbed society.

But the story doesn't end there. Our latest research, extending beyond 2009, suggests an encouraging rebound in empathic traits.

Examining Published Research

We re-examined published research that measured empathy in American undergraduates since 1979.  Konrath and her colleagues reviewed research prior to 2009. We added findings from 126 new studies and six sets of data from our own laboratory that had not been published before. In total, we analyzed the responses of 38,693 undergraduates to get a clear picture of recent trends in empathy.

Our analysis focused on two types of empathy—empathic concern and perspective-taking.  Both had previously shown declines over time. We used a statistical method known as cross-temporal meta-analysis and looked for linear changes such as an overall decline or overall rise in empathy over time. We also looked for fluctuations in empathy over time. We measured various characteristics of research participants, such as economic factors and broader cultural values to examine whether changes in empathy could be linked to shifts in these broader societal trends.

Although we did not find a significant linear change in empathy over the entire period, there was a notable wave-like trend. Perspective-taking and empathic concern remained relatively stable from 1979 to 1999, followed by a significant decline from 2000 to 2007.  From 2008 onwards, there was a significant increase. These trends remained robust even after accounting for various demographic, economic, and interpersonal factors. These results confirm that after a period of decline, both empathic concern and perspective-taking have recently increased among American undergraduates (see Figure 1).

College Students' Empathic Concern and Perspective-Taking Scores from 1979-2018
Figure 1. College Students' Empathic Concern and Perspective-Taking Scores from 1979-2018 (Study 1)

Nationally Representative Surveys

We next wanted to confirm these findings using data from nationally representative surveys. We analyzed perspective-taking trends using data from the American Freshman Survey and empathic concern trends using the Monitoring the Future survey. These surveys provided annual responses from first-year college students and high school seniors, respectively.

The survey results reinforced our findings. Perspective-taking declined from 1979 to 1999, showed no significant change from 2000 to 2007, and then significantly increased from 2008 to 2018. Empathic concern showed a similar trend, with a significant decline from 1976 to 1999, no change from 2000 to 2007, and a marginal increase from 2008 to 2018. These results underscore the non-linear, fluctuating nature of empathy among young Americans, with a notable increase in recent years (see Figure 2).

First year college students’ perspective taking and high school seniors’ empathic concern from 1979-2018
Figure 2. First-year college students’ perspective taking (Study 2a; American Freshman Survey) and high school seniors’ empathic concern (Study 2b; Monitoring the Future Survey) from 1979-2018

Why Does Empathy Fluctuate Over Time?

Neither economic factors (such as the inflation rate or unemployment rate) nor worldview factors (such as trust in institutions or optimism about the future) explained these changes in empathy. Instead, changes in empathy were related to interpersonal dynamics, such as changes in how frequently people socialized and their feelings of loneliness. Empathy increased when socializing decreased and loneliness increased.

We were surprised to find that empathy levels were higher during periods of increased loneliness. This seems to contradict previous research, which suggests that people with generally higher empathy tend to be less lonely. However, our findings align with a recent study that intentionally made participants feel lonely which increased their motivation to empathize. It's possible that being lonely acts like a 'social hunger,' driving people to seek out and empathize with others. However, until more research investigates this link, it is premature to draw any conclusions about whether feeling lonely causes people to be more empathic.

Our findings challenge the narrative that empathy is steadily declining among American youth. The post-2008 increase in empathy, particularly in perspective-taking, offers a more optimistic view of young Americans today. However, the story of empathy is far from complete. Our society is continuously evolving, and with it, the factors that shape our ability to empathize. The COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, is likely to have had significant implications for empathy, given its profound impact on social interactions and worldviews.

Conclusion

Our research highlights the dynamic nature of empathy across generations. Research shows not only periods of decline but also remarkable rebounds and growth in empathic traits among youth. Contrary to the age-old adage of declining empathy among youth, our findings reveal a more complex and hopeful scenario. Young people are not uniformly less empathetic than their forebears; instead, the empathy of youth today ebbs and flows, much like the societal currents they are part of.


For Further Reading

Konrath, S., Martingano, A. J., Davis, M., & Breithaupt, F. (2023). Empathy Trends in American Youth Between 1979 and 2018: An Update. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231218360 
 

Alison Jane Martingano is an Assistant Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. Her research focuses on understanding the nature of empathy as well as designing interventions to promote it.

How to Make Relationships More Resistant to Cheating

Attempting to see a situation from a partner's perspective, and striving to feel and think as the partner would—in other words, engaging in perspective-taking—enables people to understand their partners and feel compassion for them. Perhaps, therefore, perspective-taking helps people respond constructively when their partner engages in destructive acts. For example, adopting a partner's perspective (rather than your own) while they are upset and snap at you may motivate you to interpret their behavior more positively. You may tell yourself that they had a rough day, and react accordingly by expressing affection and care instead of snapping back at them.

In our latest research, we wished to explore whether the beneficial effects of perspective-taking extend to regulating reactions to one's own potentially destructive behavior. Specifically, in three studies, we examined whether adopting a current partner's point of view would help romantically involved individuals resist the temptation of alternative partners, encouraging relationship-protective strategies that reduce interest in alternative partners and strengthen the bond with the current partner.

How did we do this? We asked our participants to either adopt the perspective of their actual romantic partner or not. Then, they evaluated, encountered, or thought about attractive strangers. Then we measured participants' expressions of interest in these strangers as well as their commitment to and desire for the current partner.

Based on Photos

In the first study, those who were assigned to do perspective-taking described what they might be thinking, feeling, and experiencing if they were their partners, looking at the world through their partners' eyes and walking in their partners' shoes, as they go through the various activities they experience during a typical day in their lives. The other participants just described a day in their partner's life without any additional instructions. Then, everyone evaluated pictures of attractive strangers of the other gender, indicating under time pressure whether the pictured individual might be a prospective partner. We used the number of selected partners as an index of interest in alternative partners.

Based on Meeting an Attractive Person

In the second study, participants were instructed to do perspective-taking or not (as before) and then they interacted with an attractive interviewer and rated their sexual interest in the interviewer as well as their commitment to their current partner.

Based on One's Own (Imagined) Infidelity

In the third study, participants visualized a scene in which their partner discovered that they (the participant) was involved in a passionate affair with an attractive individual. They did this visualization while either taking their partner's perspective or not. Following that, they described a sexual fantasy about someone other than their current partner and rated their sexual desire for their current partner. To help participants generate such fantasies, we asked them to imagine themselves in the following scenario:

"While you are traveling alone, you meet a person you find very attractive at a pick-up bar. One thing leads to another, and the two of you wind up talking, laughing, and having a very good time. You feel a strong sense of physical attraction to this person who makes you feel alive, and attractive, after not experiencing such feelings for a long time. You know that under any other circumstance you could not have had a relationship with this person; and that you are not likely to see this person ever again. You have tonight only ..."

We then analyzed the fantasies for expressions of relationship-protective responses and sexual interest in alternative partners. Protective responses reflected, for example, thinking about the current partner while having sex with someone else or comparing the alternative partners to the current partner in a way that made the current partner preferable.

Does Perspective-taking Help Protect the Relationship?

Yes, all three studies supported the idea that seeing the situation through the partner's eyes could be protective. Taking a partner's viewpoint increased commitment and desire for this partner, while decreasing sexual and romantic interest in alternative partners.

Overall, our research deepens our understanding of how couples can maintain stable and satisfying relationships in the face of appealing alternative partners. Past studies have shown that romantically involved individuals may also accomplish this by ignoring attractive others or perceiving them as less attractive than they are. Still, people often lack the motivation to do so, as indicated by the high rates of infidelity. Our findings offer a different way people can withstand short-term temptations: stop and consider how romantic partners may be affected by these situations.  

Because partner perspective-taking increases concern for the needs and desires of others, it can improve couple interaction, regardless of whether threats to the relationship are present or not. And yet, actively contemplating a partner's point of view may be particularly beneficial to relationship happiness while facing situations in which one's own behavior can upset partners. In these situations, perspective-taking may foster empathy for the partner's potential suffering. As a result, people are likely to interpret their circumstances in a manner that makes it easier to avoid hurting their partners' feelings and jeopardizing the relationship. When such situations involve a conflict between the allure of alternative partners and the goal of maintaining the current relationship, perspective-taking may tip the scale in favor of long-term considerations over short-term pleasures.


For Further Reading

Birnbaum, G. E., Bachar, T., Levy, G. F., Zholtack, K., & Reis, H. T. (2023). Put me in your shoes: Does perspective-taking inoculate against the appeal of alternative partners? The Journal of Sex Research.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2150998

Lydon, J., & Karremans, J. C. (2015). Relationship regulation in the face of eye candy: A motivated cognition framework for understanding responses to attractive alternatives. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 76–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.011

Thompson, A. E., & O'Sullivan, L. F. (2016). I can but you can't: Inconsistencies in judgments of and experiences with infidelity. Journal of Relationships Research, 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2016.1

Cahill, V. A., Malouff, J. M., Little, C. W., & Schutte, N. S. (2020). Trait perspective-taking and romantic relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(8), 1025–1035. 10.1037/fam0000661


Gurit E. Birnbaum is a full professor of Psychology at Reichman University (IDC Herzliya), Israel. Her research focuses on the underlying functions of sexual fantasies and on the convoluted role played by sexuality in the broader context of close relationships. 

A Little Perspective Goes a Long Way

It may come as no surprise that political polarization is on the rise; liberals are becoming more liberal, and conservatives are becoming more conservative. This is more than simple disagreement; political polarization involves an extreme commitment to one’s ideology and an unwillingness to consider other viewpoints. According to Kristin Laurin from the University of British Columbia, we need to be willing to take the perspective of people with opposing views in order to combat political polarization. But how do people perceive those who engage in such perspective-taking? How would you feel if a friend who shares your political views spent time researching and considering opposing political views? Would you like them more or less?

Laurin and graduate student Gordon Heltzel set out to answer this question. Over 6 studies, participants reported their own views on 4 political topics, and read a vignette about a character with the same political views. The character was either a perspective-taker (said they were interested in considering the opposing view) or a non-perspective-taker (said they were not interested in considering the opposing view). Participants then reported how much they liked the character. Results show that participants liked the perspective taker more than the non-perspective-taker. These results held when instead of vignettes, these participants had to rate how much they would like to work with a confederate who was either a perspective taker or a non-perspective-taker.

Do these results apply to everyone? Maybe some people are more accepting of perspective-takers than others. Perspective-taking can make people seem disloyal, and conservatives are more sensitive to disloyalty than liberals, so perhaps they would like perspective-takers less. Or, perhaps people with more extreme political views on either side of the spectrum would like perspective-takers less, since they tend to be less open to opposing views. Participants in another study reported their political orientation and the strength of their political views. Even though participants who were more conservative and those with more extreme political views liked the perspective-takers a little less than those who were more liberal and with less extreme political views, they still liked perspective-takers more than non-perspective-takers. Overall, people seem to like perspective-takers more than non-perspective-takers regardless of their personal political orientation or extremity of their views.

Laurin’s research illuminates how people perceive those who are willing to perspective-take. So far, this research suggests that people like those who are willing to consider the other side of a political argument. This finding is important for political polarization because how we see others being treated for perspective-taking might influence whether or not we are willing to perspective-take ourselves.


Written by: Adrianna Tassone, MA student at Wilfrid Laurier University

Presenter: Kristin Laurin (University of British Columbia) https://psych.ubc.ca/profile/kristin-laurin/

Session: “Interpersonal Dynamics of Ideological Conflict Management” part of the symposium, “Persuasion and Activism Across Moral Divides” on Saturday, February 9th, 2019.