Perspective Taking and Self-Persuasion: Why “Putting Yourself in Their Shoes” Reduces Openness to Attitude Change

Catapano, Rhia; Tormala, Zakary L.; Rucker, Derek D.

doi:10.1177/0956797618822697

Cited by 34 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, participants are taught techniques, such as "putting oneself in another's shoes" (perspective-taking), thinking of people from other groups as individuals rather than just as homogeneous group members (individuation), and generating examples of people from other groups who challenge stereotypical assumptions (e.g., Marie Curie; counterstereotype exposure). While some of these strategies have shown mixed effects when implemented in isola-tion, especially perspective-taking (Catapano et al, 2019) and intergroup contact (Paluck et al, 2018), the combination of strategies, coupled with the educational approach, shows promise in addressing gender disparities in STEM.…”

Section: Changing Individual-level Gender Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The landscape of gender in education and the workforce has shifted over the past decades: women have made gains in representation, equitable pay, and recognition through awards, grants, and publications. Despite overall change, differences persist in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This Viewpoints article on gender disparities in STEM offers an overarching perspective by addressing what the issues are, why the issues may emerge, and how the issues may be solved. In Part 1, recent data on gaps in representation, compensation, and recognition (awards, grants, publications) are reviewed, highlighting differences across subfields (e.g., computer science vs biology) and across career trajectories (e.g., bachelor's degrees vs senior faculty). In Part 2, evidence on leading explanations for these gaps, including explanations centered on abilities, preferences, and explicit and implicit bias, is presented. Particular attention is paid to implicit bias: mental processes that exist largely outside of conscious awareness and control in both male and female perceivers and female targets themselves. Given its prevalence and persistence, implicit bias warrants a central focus for research and application. Finally, in Part 3, the current knowledge is presented on interventions to change individuals' beliefs and behaviors, as well as organizational culture and practices. The moral issues surrounding equal access aside, understanding and addressing the complex issues surrounding gender in STEM are important because of the possible benefits to STEM and society that will be realized only when full participation of all capable and qualified individuals is guaranteed.

show abstract

Section: Changing Individual-level Gender Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effectiveness of choice blindness in the political domain distinguishes it from many other forms of persuasion, such as perspective-taking [55][56]. In a recent study, Catapano and colleagues [57] found that such methods are less effective for deep-seated attitudes, such as those relating to politics. In fact, imagining the perspectives of out-group members can even backfire and hinder subsequent attitude change.…”

Section: Choice Blindness As a Methods To Study Depolarizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Depolarizing American voters: Democrats and Republicans are equally susceptible to false attitude feedback

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

American politics is becoming increasingly polarized, which biases decision-making and reduces open-minded debate. In two experiments, we demonstrate that despite this polarization, a simple manipulation can make people express and endorse less polarized views about competing political candidates. In Study 1, we approached 136 participants at the first 2016 presidential debate and on the streets of New York City. Participants completed a survey evaluating Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on various personality traits; 72% gave responses favoring a single candidate. We then covertly manipulated their surveys so that the majority of their responses became moderate instead. Participants only noticed and corrected a few of these manipulations. When asked to explain their responses, 94% accepted the manipulated responses as their own and rationalized this neutral position accordingly, even though they reported more polarized views moments earlier. In Study 2, we replicated the experiment online with a more politically diverse sample of 498 participants. Both Clinton and Trump supporters showed nearly identical rates of acceptance and rationalization of their manipulated-to-neutral positions. These studies demonstrate how false feedback can powerfully shape the expression of political views. More generally, our findings reveal the potential for open-minded discussion even in a fundamentally divided political climate.

show abstract

“…However, caution is needed when considering techniques to bridge the divide. One tempting solution—encouraging sides to consider the opposition’s perspective—can actually exacerbate differences in certain conditions (Catapano, Tormala, and Rucker 2019).…”

Section: Opportunity and Hope: A Guide For Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political Polarization: Challenges, Opportunities, and Hope for Consumer Welfare, Marketers, and Public Policy

Weber¹,

Hydock²,

Ding³

et al. 2021

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political polarization is a marked political division in the population, characterized by multiple manifestations. We argue that it can impact consumer psychology, which in turn influences marketers, policy makers, and consumer welfare. The present work introduces the construct of political polarization to the marketing literature, and shows how it serves as a novel challenge for various marketing stakeholders. For consumers, we propose that political polarization increases the salience of political identities, alters inter- and intra-group dynamics, and amplifies cognitive biases. These effects negatively impact consumer welfare, including financial welfare, relationships, mental and physical health, and societal interests. For marketers, polarization introduces a challenge to both be more socio-politically engaged while also navigating competing political interests. Polarization also creates new opportunities and challenges for segmentation, targeting, loyalty, and impacts product offerings. For policy makers, political polarization creates policy gaps, impedes the implementation of policy, and obstructs governance. Building from these insights, we consider the drawbacks and overlooked benefits of political polarization, potential remedies, and directions for future research.

show abstract

Perspective Taking and Self-Persuasion: Why “Putting Yourself in Their Shoes” Reduces Openness to Attitude Change

Cited by 34 publications

References 37 publications

Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions

Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions

Depolarizing American voters: Democrats and Republicans are equally susceptible to false attitude feedback

Political Polarization: Challenges, Opportunities, and Hope for Consumer Welfare, Marketers, and Public Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About