logo
ResearchBunny Logo
The impact of empathy and perspective-taking instructions on proponents and opponents of immigration

Political Science

The impact of empathy and perspective-taking instructions on proponents and opponents of immigration

O. M. Klimecki, M. Vétois, et al.

This study by Olga M. Klimecki, Matthieu Vétois, and David Sander delves into how empathy and perspective-taking can impact individuals with differing views on immigration. The findings reveal how these methods can alter emotional responses and perceptions of competitiveness, shedding light on new paths for conflict resolution in immigration debates.

00:00
00:00
Playback language: English
Introduction
Immigration is a highly contentious issue in many societies, often sparking heated debates between proponents and opponents. This study, conducted in Switzerland, explores the potential of empathy and perspective-taking exercises to bridge this divide. While these exercises have shown promise in some contexts, prior research indicates differences in motivation to engage in empathy based on political orientation—with leftists showing higher motivation than rightists. However, the impact of these exercises on perspective-taking and specifically within the context of immigration debates remains largely unexplored. The researchers hypothesized that individuals opposed to immigration would be less receptive to empathy and perspective-taking instructions compared to those in favor. They also anticipated that these instructions would be more effective in reducing tension and fostering positive interactions among those who support immigration. The Swiss context is particularly relevant due to the recent history of contentious immigration policy debates culminating in the 2014 popular initiative "against mass immigration", highlighting the deep societal divisions surrounding this topic. The study aimed to address this gap by investigating how instructions to engage in empathy and perspective-taking influence the dynamics of discussions on immigration between individuals holding opposing views.
Literature Review
The study reviews existing literature on perspective-taking and empathy as conflict resolution strategies. Perspective-taking, defined as viewing a situation from another's viewpoint, has been linked to increased altruism, reduced punishment behavior, and improved intergroup relations. However, it can also backfire in competitive contexts, potentially increasing egoistic behavior or negative attitudes towards out-groups, particularly when individuals feel threatened or highly identify with their ingroup. Empathy, the sharing of another's emotions, similarly presents mixed results. Compassionate empathy, characterized by concern for another's suffering, tends to be more beneficial than empathic distress, which can lead to aggression. Political orientation is also a significant factor, with research suggesting that leftists demonstrate greater motivation for empathy compared to rightists. The reviewed studies highlight the complex interplay between perspective-taking, empathy, political views, group identification, and context in shaping the effectiveness of these strategies for conflict resolution. This literature lays the groundwork for the current study, which directly investigates the differential impact of these strategies on individuals with opposing views on immigration.
Methodology
Ninety-two participants (46 men, 46 women; age range 18–72 years) were recruited in Switzerland via flyers posted on the University of Geneva campus, excluding psychology students. Participants were screened for fluency in French and then categorized into either "pro-immigration" or "anti-immigration" based on their responses to a questionnaire assessing their views on immigration levels in Switzerland and Europe. Same-sex dyads were created, each consisting of one pro-immigration and one anti-immigration participant. These dyads were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) perspective-taking instructions, (2) empathy instructions, or (3) a control group with no instructions. Before the experiment, participants completed questionnaires measuring demographic information, trait empathy (Interpersonal Reactivity Index—IRI), alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale—TAS-20), and social desirability. During a laboratory session, dyads received their respective instructions and engaged in a 20-minute discussion on immigration policies, recorded on video. Afterwards, participants completed questionnaires measuring motivation for perspective-taking and empathy, empathic accuracy (using video excerpts and inference tasks), interpersonal closeness (Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale—IOS and physical proximity), positive and negative affect (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule—PANAS), and satisfaction with the discussion outcome. Qualitative data were also collected through open-ended questions about agreement, strategies used, and recollection of arguments. Statistical analyses included ANOVAs, MANOVAs, and Pearson and Spearman correlations to examine differences between conditions and groups. A factor analysis was performed on discussion-related variables to identify latent factors, such as cooperativeness, competitiveness, and success of the negotiation.
Key Findings
The analysis revealed several key findings. First, pro-immigration participants demonstrated significantly higher motivation to engage in empathy when given empathy instructions compared to anti-immigration participants. This effect was not observed for perspective-taking instructions. Pro-immigration participants showed increased motivation for both perspective-taking and empathy when instructed to do so. Perspective-taking instructions led to a reduction in both positive and negative emotions among pro-immigration participants, while having the opposite effect on anti-immigration participants who perceived increased competitiveness in their counterparts. There were no significant differences in empathic accuracy between groups or conditions. Interestingly, there was no correlation between the explicit (IOS) and implicit (physical proximity) measures of interpersonal closeness, potentially due to a ceiling effect from the limited space available. A factor analysis identified four latent factors related to the discussion: cooperativeness, competitiveness/emotions, negotiation success, and agreement. Further analysis indicated a significant interaction between opinion on immigration and condition on competitiveness and emotions. Specifically, pro-immigration participants in the perspective-taking group showed significantly lower levels of competitiveness and emotions than those in the control or empathy conditions, and lower levels than anti-immigration participants in the perspective-taking condition. Conversely, the control group showed a trend towards higher competitiveness and emotional intensity among pro-immigration participants. In terms of emotions, pro-immigration participants showed less positive affect in the perspective-taking group than in the control or empathy groups, and more positive affect in the empathy group than the perspective-taking group. Conversely, pro-immigration participants reported less negative affect in the perspective-taking condition than in the control or empathy conditions. Anti-immigration participants, in contrast, showed increased perception of their partners' competitiveness in the perspective-taking condition compared to the control group.
Discussion
The findings extend previous research by demonstrating that political orientation toward immigration moderates the impact of empathy and perspective-taking instructions. Pro-immigration participants were more receptive to these interventions, experiencing emotional regulation and increased motivation for perspective-taking and empathy. Conversely, perspective-taking instructions seemingly exacerbated conflict among opponents of immigration, suggesting these interventions may not be universally beneficial and requiring tailored approaches based on pre-existing views. The reduction in both positive and negative emotions among pro-immigration participants under perspective-taking instructions is noteworthy, potentially suggesting a mechanism for conflict resolution where individuals can process and manage intense emotions. The finding that empathy instructions increased positive affect in pro-immigration participants relative to anti-immigration participants supports the hypothesis that empathy can be a more effective tool in promoting positive interactions. The lack of significant differences in empathic accuracy might suggest that while motivational factors and emotional responses are affected by the instructions, actual empathic accuracy remains unchanged. The negative effect of perspective-taking instructions on opponents of immigration underscores the importance of contextual factors and pre-existing attitudes in determining the efficacy of these strategies.
Conclusion
The study highlights the significant influence of individual viewpoints on the effectiveness of empathy and perspective-taking interventions in immigration-related conflict. While proponents of immigration are receptive, opponents may experience these interventions negatively. Future research should focus on developing tailored strategies that address the resistance of opponents, possibly through indirect emotional regulation techniques or the integration of mediators to reduce perceived threats. The study also underlines the importance of considering emotional responses and motivational factors in designing conflict resolution strategies. Further research should explore different forms of empathy, longer-term interventions, and a broader range of conflict intensities to comprehensively understand the dynamics of intergroup conflict in the context of immigration.
Limitations
The study's limitations include the relatively mild nature of disagreement in the laboratory setting, the potential for endogeneity (uncontrolled factors that might influence both political views and other variables), and the focus on instructions rather than more extensive training exercises. The use of self-report measures for some variables is another limitation. The limited sample size and the specific context of Switzerland might also affect the generalizability of the findings. Future studies could address these limitations by including larger, more diverse samples, utilizing a wider range of measurement techniques, and incorporating longer-term interventions in more realistic settings.
Listen, Learn & Level Up
Over 10,000 hours of research content in 25+ fields, available in 12+ languages.
No more digging through PDFs, just hit play and absorb the world's latest research in your language, on your time.
listen to research audio papers with researchbunny