Gillian Ku

Perspective-Taking and Self-Other Overlap: Fostering Social Bonds and Facilitating Social Coordination

The present article offers a conceptual model for how the cognitive processes associated with perspective-taking facilitate social coordination and foster social bonds. We suggest that the benefits of perspective-taking accrue through an increased self-other overlap in cognitive representations and discuss the implications of this perspective-taking induced self-other overlap for stereotyping and prejudice. Whereas perspective-taking decreases stereotyping of others (through application of the self to the other), it increases stereotypicality of one’s own behavior (through inclusion of the other in the self). To promote social bonds, perspective-takers utilize information, including stereotypes, to coordinate their behavior with others. The discussion focuses on the implications, both positive and negative, of this self-other overlap for social relationships and discusses how conceptualizing perspective-taking, as geared toward supporting specific social bonds, provides a framework for understanding why the effects of perspective-taking are typically target-specific and do not activate a general helping mind-set. Through its attempts to secure social bonds, perspective-taking can be an engine of social harmony, but can also reveal a dark side, one full of ironic consequences.

The Effects of Perspective-Taking on Prejudice: The Moderating Role of Self-Evaluation

Perspective-taking, by means of creating an overlap between self and other cognitive representations, has been found to effectively decrease stereotyping and ingroup favoritism. In the present investigation, the authors examined the potential moderating role of self-esteem on the effects of perspective-taking on prejudice. In two experiments, it was found that perspective-takers, but not control participants, with temporarily or chronically high self-esteem evaluated an outgroup more positively than perspective-takers with low self-esteem. This finding suggests an irony of perspective-taking: it builds off egocentric biases to improve outgroup evaluations. The discussion focuses on how debiasing intergroup thought is often best accomplished by working through the very processes that produced the bias in the first place.

Perspective-Takers Behave More Stereotypically

Nine studies demonstrated that perspective-takers are particularly likely to adopt a targets positive and negative stereotypical traits and behaviors. Perspective-takers rated both positive and negative stereotypic traits of targets as more self-descriptive. As a result, taking the perspective of a professor led to improved performance on an analytic task, whereas taking the perspective of a cheerleader led to decreased performance, in line with the respective stereotypes of professors and cheerleaders. Similarly, perspective-takers of an elderly target competed less compared to perspective-takers of an African American target. Including the stereotype in the self (but not liking of the target) mediated the effects of perspective-taking on behavior, suggesting that cognitive and not affective processes drove the behavioral effects. These effects occurred using a measure and multiple manipulations of perspective-taking, as well as a panoply of stereotypes, establishing the robustness of the link between perspective-taking and stereotypical behavior. The findings support theorizing (A. D. Galinsky, G. Ku, & C. S. Wang, 2005) that perspective-takers utilize information, including stereotypes, to coordinate their behavior with others and provide key theoretical insights into the processes of both perspective-taking and behavioral priming.

To Start Low or To Start High?: The Case of Auctions Versus Negotiations

We document how starting prices differentially impact outcomes in negotiations and auctions. In negotiations (where the number of actors is often predetermined), starting prices drive cognitive processes, leading individuals to selectively focus on information consistent with, and make valuations similar to, the starting value. Thus, starting high will often lead to ending high in negotiations. Conversely, in auctions (where the number of actors is determined during the course of the auction), low starting prices catalyze social processes that can lead to higher final prices: Low starting prices lower barriers to entry and increase the number of bidders; produce more sunk costs for early entrants; and lead participants to infer greater value from this increased bidding activity, resulting in herding behavior. By examining the differential intrapsychic and interpersonal processes that starting prices activate in negotiations versus auctions, we offer a first step toward a more complete understanding of anchoring effects in economic interactions.

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

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 produces 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.

Before Escalation: Behavioral and Affective Forecasting in Escalation of Commitment

This research examines preinvestment forecasting processes in escalation of commitment, considering two questions: whether individuals are able to accurately predict their behavior and affect in escalation situations and how forecasting processes may be linked to actual escalation. Three experiments demonstrated that individuals underpredicted their escalation and overpredicted their postescalation regret. Two of the experiments also indicated that the less individuals predicted being entrapped, the more they escalated. Counter to expectations, anticipated regret did not predict escalation. The discussion focuses on the theoretical and practical importance of forecasting on escalation and on the importance of understanding both behavioral and affective forecasting effects simultaneously.

Group Context, Social Identity, and Ethical Decision Making: A Preliminary Test

Researchers have proposed a variety of models to depict, explain, and understand ethical decision-making processes. Rest (1986) proposed a four-stage, individually oriented model, in which a person who makes a moral decision must (1) recognize the moral issue, (2) make a moral judgment, (3) establish moral intent, and (4) make moral decisions. Similarly, Ferrell, Gresham, and Fraedrich (1989) developed a five-stage model that included awareness, cognitions, evaluations, determination, and actions. Finally, Trevino (1986) proposed a slightly different model that begins with the recognition of an ethical dilemma and proceeds to a cognition stage in which individuals make moral judgments that further affect their ethical or unethical decisions (see Jones, 1991, for a review).

The Defecting Perspective-Taker: The Impact of Stereotypes and Perspective-Taking in a Prisoner's Dilemma

Galinsky, Ku, & Wang (2005) discuss the implications of perspective-taking induced self-other overlap for stereotyping and prejudice and suggested that whereas perspective-taking decreases stereotyping of others (through application of the self to the other), it increases stereotypicality of ones own behavior (through inclusion of the other in the self). To promote social bonds, perspective-takers utilize information, including stereotypes, to coordinate their behavior with others. Although social coordination may be designed to promote social bonds, at times coordination may threaten these bonds. The current investigation tests whether the content of the stereotype to which perspective-takers are exposed may moderate whether social coordination will naturally lead to supporting social bonds. In an experiment, perspective-takers of an African-American target defected more in a subsequent prisoners dilemma game (PDG) than did control and suppression participants. On the other hand, perspective-takers of an Elderly target cooperated more in the PDG than did control and suppression participants. Through increases in social coordination, perspective-taking can be an engine of social harmony, but can reveal a dark side, one full of ironic consequences.

The cultural boundaries of perspective-taking: when and why perspective-taking reduces stereotyping

Research conducted in Western cultures indicates that perspective-taking is an effective social strategy for reducing stereotyping. The current article explores whether and why the effects of perspective-taking on stereotyping differ across cultures. Studies 1 and 2 established that perspective-taking reduces stereotyping in Western but not in East Asian cultures. Using a socioecological framework, Studies 2 and 3 found that relational mobility, that is, the extent to which individuals’ social environments provide them opportunities to choose new relationships and terminate old ones, explained our effect: Perspective-taking was negatively associated with stereotyping in relationally mobile (Western) but not in relationally stable (East Asian) environments. Finally, Study 4 examined the proximal psychological mechanism underlying the socioecological effect: Individuals in relationally mobile environments are more motivated to develop new relationships than those in relationally stable environments. Subsequently, when this motivation is high, perspective-taking increases self-target group overlap, which then decreases stereotyping.