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

This study examined how instructions to engage in empathy versus perspective taking influence interactions about immigration policy between individuals who favor increasing immigration (pro-immigration) and those who oppose it (anti-immigration) in Switzerland. Immigration is a polarizing issue in Europe and Switzerland, exemplified by narrow referendum outcomes and divergent political stances. Prior work suggests perspective taking and empathy can improve intergroup relations, but effects are mixed and appear contingent on factors such as political orientation and group identification. The authors hypothesized that opponents of immigration would be less motivated to engage in empathy or perspective taking than proponents, and that these instructions would more effectively reduce tensions and improve interpersonal outcomes among proponents than opponents. Dyads with opposing views were randomly assigned to discuss immigration under perspective-taking instructions, empathy instructions, or no instructions (control).

The paper reviews evidence that perspective taking can foster altruism, liking, closeness, helping, reduce stereotyping and prejudice, and improve negotiation outcomes (e.g., Davis, 1983; Galinsky et al., 2005, 2008; Ku et al., 2015). Mechanistically, increases in self–other overlap may underlie benefits. However, perspective taking can backfire, particularly under perceived threat or competitive contexts, increasing egoistic or unethical behavior (Epley et al., 2006; Pierce et al., 2013; Paluck, 2010; Sassenrath et al., 2016). Compliance with perspective-taking instructions depends on national glorification and group identification, with adverse or beneficial effects varying by identification level (Berndsen et al., 2018; Zebel et al., 2009; Tarrant et al., 2012). Empathy, conceptualized as sharing another’s emotions with self–other awareness, has been linked to altruism and improved intergroup relations, but findings are mixed and depend on the form (e.g., compassion vs empathic distress) (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Dovidio et al., 2010; Klimecki, 2019). Political orientation also modulates empathic motivation and responsiveness, with liberals typically showing greater motivation and change following emotional inductions than conservatives (Pliskin et al., 2014; Porat et al., 2016; Hasson et al., 2018). Some combinations of empathy induction and intergroup contact can even elicit derogation among more prejudiced participants (Vorauer & Sasaki, 2009). These strands suggest empathy and perspective taking are influential yet context- and person-dependent, motivating the present test in contentious immigration debates.

Design and participants: 92 French-speaking adults in Switzerland (46 men, 46 women; age 18–72, M=27.73, SD=9.43) were recruited via university flyers for a 1-hour lab study (20 CHF compensation). Psychology students were excluded. Participants completed pre-screening questionnaires online and were paired into same-sex dyads with opposing views on immigration (one pro-immigration, one anti-immigration based on endorsing increased vs decreased/no increase in immigration). Dyads were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: perspective-taking instructions (n=30), empathy instructions (n=30), or no instructions (control; n=32). Groups were balanced on sex, age, trait empathy (IRI), alexithymia (TAS-20), and social desirability; pro vs anti participants did not differ on IRI subscales.

Measures:

• Baseline questionnaires: demographics; frequency of discussing immigration; Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI); Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Social desirability was collected post-task.
• Motivation measures (Vétois, 2018): single items assessed motivation to engage in perspective taking, to attend to the other’s emotions (empathy), and to attend to one’s own emotions (emotional awareness).
• Empathic accuracy (Ickes, 2001): 5-minute video excerpts of each dyadic discussion were later viewed individually. Participants reported their own thoughts/feelings with timestamps; partners inferred those contents at the same timestamps. Two blind raters scored accuracy for thoughts and emotions. Data available for 25/30 empathy, 30/30 perspective-taking, 27/32 control participants.
• Interpersonal closeness: implicit measure via physical distance on a sofa from photos before and after discussion; explicit Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) scale post-discussion.
• Post-discussion questionnaires: PANAS (positive/negative affect); adapted post-negotiation questionnaire (Schlegel, 2013) with subscales (cooperativeness self/other, competitiveness self/other, competence other, atmosphere), plus items for satisfaction, perceived own win, perceived other’s win; count of agreements reached.
• Qualitative reports: participants described agreement vs conflict reached and strategies used; two blind raters categorized as agreement/ conflict/unknown and as strategy reflecting perspective taking/empathy/unknown.

Instructions:

• Perspective taking (adapted from Galinsky et al., 2008): imagine yourself in the other’s shoes; try to understand what the other is thinking; visualize being on the other side of the table thinking as the other.
• Empathy: attend closely to one’s own emotions and the other’s emotions during the discussion; understand which emotions are present; be aware of both self and other emotions.
• Control: no preparatory instruction (otherwise same task instructions).

Procedure: After consent and an initial sofa photo, dyads sat in the experimental room and received a “Recommendations for immigration” form (10 policy questions; e.g., admission criteria; naturalization criteria). Dyads had 20 minutes to produce joint written answers while being video recorded. Afterward, participants completed IOS, PANAS, the post-negotiation questionnaire, qualitative questions, social desirability, and the empathic accuracy task with the 5-minute video excerpt. A second sofa photo was taken to measure seating distance. Participants were debriefed and paid.

Analyses: Behavioral variables were scaled 0–100 and entered into exploratory factor analysis (principal axis, oblimin) to derive composite scores; KMO=0.74 yielded four factors: Cooperativeness; Competitiveness and Positive/Negative Emotions; Success of the Negotiation; Agreement. Independence within dyads was tested; dyad used as unit when interdependence p<0.2; otherwise participant-level analyses. ANOVAs/MANOVAs with condition (perspective, empathy, control) and opinion (pro vs anti) were conducted; Pearson/Spearman correlations assessed dyad independence and inter-rater reliability. Chi-square/Fisher’s tests analyzed qualitative categorizations.

• Motivation to engage: Significant condition × opinion interaction for motivation to empathy (F(2,86)=3.2, p<0.05) with higher motivation among pro- vs anti-immigration participants in the empathy condition (t(28)=2.94, p<0.01); no pro/anti difference in control or perspective-taking conditions. For emotional awareness (self-emotion attention), interaction significant (F(2,86)=7.73, p<0.01): among pro-immigration participants, empathy instructions increased emotional awareness vs control (t(29)=5.44, p<0.001) and vs perspective-taking (t(28)=3.15, p<0.01); no effects among anti-immigration participants. For motivation for perspective taking, overall ANOVA effects ns, but among pro-immigration participants motivation was higher in perspective-taking vs control (t(29)=2.06, p<0.05) and vs empathy (t(28)=2.54, p<0.05).
• Empathic accuracy: No significant effects of condition or opinion on percent correct thoughts or emotions (all Fs≤2.7, ps≥0.11); inter-rater reliability good (emotions r=0.87; thoughts r=0.74).
• Interpersonal closeness (implicit seating distance): No correlation with IOS (r=0.002, p=0.99); no condition effects (F(2,40)=0.48, p=0.62).
• Factor analysis produced four composites: Cooperativeness; Competitiveness and Positive/Negative Emotions; Success; Agreement. Repeated-measures MANOVA showed a significant condition × opinion interaction (F(8,80)=2.12, p<0.05). Univariate tests: interaction significant for Competitiveness and Positive/Negative Emotions and trending for Agreement.
• Composite Competitiveness and Emotions: In the perspective-taking condition, pro-immigration participants scored lower than anti-immigration participants (t(14)=2.83, p<0.05). Among pro-immigration participants, perspective taking decreased this composite versus control (t(29)=2.06, p<0.05); among anti-immigration participants there was a trend in the opposite direction (t(29)=1.85, p=0.07).
• Positive affect (PANAS): In empathy condition, pro > anti (t(14)=2.17, p<0.05); in perspective-taking condition, pro tended to be lower than anti (t(14)=2.07, p=0.06). Among pro participants, perspective taking < control (t(29)=2.79, p<0.01) and empathy > perspective taking (t(28)=2.39, p<0.05). No differences in control by opinion.
• Negative affect (PANAS): In perspective-taking condition, pro < anti (t(14)=2.4, p<0.05). Among pro participants, perspective taking < control and < empathy (both ts≥2.25, ps<0.05); no other differences.
• Perceived competitiveness of the other: Among anti-immigration participants, perspective taking > control (t(29)=2.69, p<0.05); no differences among pro participants. Overall: Pro-immigration participants were more motivated to follow instructions, empathy increased their positive affect, and perspective taking reduced both their positive and negative affect; for anti-immigration participants, perspective taking increased perceived competitiveness of the other. No condition affected empathic accuracy or implicit closeness.

Findings indicate that openness to empathy and perspective-taking instructions depends on stance toward immigration. Proponents of immigration showed greater motivation to comply with both instruction types, and their affective responses aligned with these motivations: empathy increased positive emotions, while perspective taking reduced both positive and negative emotions. These affective shifts did not translate into measurable differences in empathic accuracy, suggesting instructions influenced motivation and subjective affect rather than objective mindreading accuracy. Critically, perspective taking may have unintended adverse effects among opponents of immigration, who perceived their partners as more competitive under perspective-taking instructions than in control. This aligns with literature showing that perspective taking can backfire under threat or competitive contexts and in high identifiers, potentially by heightening perceived threat or negative evaluations. The divergence from studies showing benefits of perspective taking for restrictive participants in mediated settings suggests that mediation may buffer threat and facilitate constructive outcomes. Practically, interventions should match target group characteristics and consider using indirect emotion regulation (e.g., reappraisal) or mediator-facilitated formats to mitigate threat and increase compliance among opponents of immigration.

The study demonstrates that responses to empathy and perspective-taking instructions in immigration debates are contingent on participants’ immigration stance. Proponents were motivated to engage and showed beneficial affective changes (empathy boosting positive affect; perspective taking dampening overall affect), whereas opponents experienced increased perceptions of the other’s competitiveness under perspective taking. Empathic accuracy and implicit closeness were unaffected. These results suggest that one-size-fits-all instruction-based interventions are ill-suited for polarized debates; tailoring to target audiences and leveraging indirect emotion regulation or mediation may be more effective. Future research should: (1) enhance motivation among opponents (e.g., via positive affect or affiliation-building), (2) test longer-term or more intensive perspective-taking/empathy trainings, (3) distinguish forms of empathy (compassion vs empathic distress), (4) examine effects in higher-conflict, real-world settings and incorporate group-based emotions and identification, (5) address endogeneity by measuring education and socioeconomic variables, and (6) compare instruction-only vs mediator-supported interventions.

• Motivation asymmetry: Opponents of immigration were not motivated to engage in either instruction, potentially limiting observed effects.
• Short, instruction-based inductions: The study used brief instructions; effects may differ with more extensive or longitudinal trainings.
• Empathy not differentiated by type: Did not separate compassion from empathic distress, which can have opposing effects.
• Context and intensity: Laboratory dyads of strangers discussing immigration represent mild disagreement; results may not generalize to severe or intractable conflicts.
• Measurement constraints: Implicit closeness measure may have ceiling effects due to small sofa; missing empathic accuracy data for some participants due to technical issues.
• Endogeneity: Participants cannot be randomly assigned to pro/anti positions; education and socioeconomic status were not measured and could confound results, though age did not differ.
• Ecological validity: Laboratory setting limits generalizability; field and mixed-method studies are needed.