The Science of Happiness. Register Today
   
 

Does Empathy Reduce Prejudice—or Promote It?

By Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton | August 29, 2011 | 4 comments

Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton explains how to make sense of conflicting scientific evidence.

Have you ever been annoyed by flip-flops in the scientific literature? Many people, for example, feel this way when it comes to nutrition science: Diet advice, it sometimes seems, changes almost as fast as hardware from Apple.

It can make one wonder about—even doubt—the usefulness of science.

YinYang

And so it was last week, when Greater Good Editor-in-Chief Jason Marsh referred me to a recently published article that contradicts the findings I talk about in this blog post about the relationship between empathy and prejudice.

My post summarized findings by researchers at the University of Manitoba showing that empathy and perspective taking can backfire in real-world intergroup interactions, because seeing the world through another person’s eyes activates negative “meta-stereotypes” (prevailing stereotypes about one’s own group) by which other people may be judging you.

In the study, white participants had to take the perspective of Aboriginal Canadians before (they thought) they’d have to interact with a member of that group. While you may think empathy would reduce prejudice, the participants seemed to anticipate the negativity with which they might be viewed, so their levels of prejudice didn’t decrease, and they actually recoiled from the upcoming interaction.

But Greater Good had just published this article about a study by researchers at the University of Cologne and Northwestern University, showing—yikes—that perspective taking reduced expressions of prejudice.

In one of their studies, the researchers found that after whites tried to take the perspective of an African American, they behaved more friendly toward a member of that group, and their African-American conversation partner liked them better. This is noteworthy because the research I had reviewed earlier suggested just the opposite—namely, that it is precisely in the real context of face-to-face intergroup interactions that empathy backfires (again, because in this context people worry about the stereotypes by which they might be perceived).

So what gives—what’s the bottom line? Is one of these two camps wrong? Is empathy good or bad for real-world interactions between races? Or should we just throw our hands up in the air and stop listening to psychologists altogether since they can barely seem to agree with one another?

Clearly, you won’t find me advocating that we stop listening to psychologists; I wouldn’t be able to do what I do if I didn’t believe in the value of the enterprise. What I do advocate, however, is that we appreciate the complexity of the human psyche, and respect the fact that it doesn’t give up its secrets easily. The road to understanding is full of zig-zags, and these studies on empathy are a case in point.

Rather than throw up my hands in despair, what this discrepancy motivates me to do is to try to understand the conditions under which empathy is more likely to activate these negative meta-sterotypes.

In the research I reviewed, for example, the white participants knew they were going to interact with an Aboriginal Canadian to discuss a movie about injustices towards Native Canadians. You can imagine that they might feel some anticipatory anxiety in this context.

By contrast, in the study on which Alex Dixon reported for Greater Good, participants (undergraduate students) in the perspective-taking condition first wrote an essay about the life of an African-American person in a photo, then spoke with a different African-American person about their psychology course. In other words, the topic of the discussion was unlikely to activate these meta-sterotypes, allowing the positive effects of empathy to shine through.

I don’t know if that difference is really what accounts for the apparent discrepancy between the two studies, but it’s a start. In other words, it’s a hypothesis (or an idea you can test—as my friends in the kids’ show Dinosaur Train would say). And we need further research to arrive at the answer.

Therein lies the value of science: Conflicting findings, rather than just being a source of frustration, help us arrive closer to important, more finely-tuned conclusions. In this case, rather than asking, ‘Is empathy good or bad for intergroup interactions?,’ the more important question may be, ‘Under what conditions does empathy activate meta-stereotypes?,’ because these meta-stereotypes may be key to whether perspective taking takes a positive or negative turn.

Now if I could only understand whether cholesterol is good or bad for me.

Tracker Pixel for Entry
 
 
 
About The Author

Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton is an associate professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, a member of Greater Good's editorial board, and the co-editor of the Greater Good book, Are We Born Racist?: New Insights from Neuroscience and Positive Psychology. This piece originally appeared on his Psychology Today blog, Are We Born Racist?.

  

Like this article?

Here's what you can do:

Donate
 
  
 

Great points - it’s too bad that Americans do not understand the scientific process in a more complete way. It seems like if people even do know what Google Scholar is, they think that a single study can prove something or that conflicting information means that one study is wrong and the other is right. Most seem to have no clue about replication, theory or how varying methods can affect a study. There was a study recently that tested local honey to prevent allergies. Subjects only tried the remedy for a few months, and the study concluded that it did not confirm the folk belief. Soon NY Times and many headlines announced that “the remedy does not work”. There were about a billion things they did not consider; the role of quercitin especially, the length of use, the way the honey is stored (refrigeration kills the enzymes), whether the treatment begins before or after the first allergy attack occurs.

Behavioral studes? Even more tricky. Replication and varying methods, I think, are the key.

ps If you were serious about the cholesterol, just think “good fats” i.e. omega 3s found in avacados and seaweed.  smile

Emmy | 6:53 pm, September 5, 2011 | Link

 

Great points ..

Asala mp3 | 11:17 am, November 11, 2011 | Link

 

I think empathy strongly reduces prejudice.  This past summer our VBS theme centered around understanding and loving others.  I try to use examples with my own children about what other children are going through.  It’s our job as parents to help teach our children what empathy is.  Not to feel sorry for them but to better understand what they are going through.

Shelly | 5:10 pm, December 1, 2011 | Link

 

Great points. I do think its our job as parents to
teach and show children what empathy is.

Best Tablet For Kids | 6:53 am, January 22, 2012 | Link

 
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

Most...

  
  • How Self-Compassion Beats Rumination

    August 20, 2014

    A new study suggests that self-compassion improves mood, largely by helping us avoid negative rumination.

  • How the Teen Brain Transforms Relationships

    August 12, 2014

    Dr. Daniel Siegel explains how changes to the adolescent brain transform relationships with peers and parents—and what adults can learn from those changes.

  • Eight Keys to End Bullying

    August 26, 2014

    Can we stop bullying? Signe Whitson says yes—by consistently reaching out to both children who bully and those who are bullied.

  

Greater Good Events

The Science of Happiness

Starts September 9, 2014 - Register Now!


The Science of Happiness

An unprecedented free online course exploring the roots of a happy, meaningful life. Co-taught by the GGSC’s Dacher Keltner and Emiliana Simon-Thomas. Up to 16 CE credit hours available.


» ALL EVENTS
 
 

Take a Greater Good Quiz!

How compassionate are you? How generous, grateful, or forgiving? Find out!

» TAKE A QUIZ
 

Watch Greater Good Videos

Jon Kabat-Zinn

Talks by inspiring speakers like Jon Kabat-Zinn, Dacher Keltner, and Barbara Fredrickson.

Watch
 

Greater Good Resources

 
 
» MORE STUDIES
 
 
» MORE ORGS
 

Book of the Week

Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain By Sharon Begley Begley explains neuroplasticity: how experience can shape the brain’s structure—and, in turn, change the way our minds and bodies function.

» READ MORE
 
Is she flirting with you? Take the quiz and find out.

Dr. Christine Carter's blog on the science of raising happy kids.

» READ MORE
 

Sponsors

The Quality of Life Foundation logo Special thanks to

The Quality of Life Foundation for its support of the Greater Good Science Center

 
"It is a great good and a great gift, this Greater Good. I bow to you for your efforts to bring these uplifting and illuminating expressions of humanity, grounded in good science, to the attention of us all."  
Jon Kabat-Zinn

Best-selling author and founder of the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction program

thnx advertisement