Public discourse on immigration has seemed to polarize over recent years—with some people strongly trusting, but others strongly distrusting immigrants. We examined whether a cognitive strategy could mitigate these biased outgroup judgments. Given that subtractive counterfactual thoughts (“If only I had not done X. . .”) facilitate cognitive flexibility and especially a relational processing style, we hypothesized that these thoughts (vs. additive counterfactuals “If only I had done X. . .” and no counterfactuals) would weaken the relationship between people’s political orientation and the perceived trustworthiness of immigrants. In five experiments (two preregistered; total N = 1,189), we found that inducing subtractive (but not additive) counterfactuals—either via rhetorical questions in a political speech or via mindset priming—had the predicted debiasing effect. Taken together, subtle means such as using subtractive counterfactual questions in political communication seem to be a promising way to reduce biased outgroup judgments in heated public debates.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. SAGE.
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Perseus Books.
3.
BaldnerC.PierroA. (2019). Motivated prejudice: The effect of need for closure on anti-immigrant attitudes in the United States and Italy and the mediating role of binding moral foundations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 70, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.03.001
4.
BertolottiM.CatellaniP. (2018). The effects of counterfactual attacks on the morality and leadership of different professionals. Social Psychology, 49(3), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000338
5.
BertolottiM.CatellaniP.DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M. (2013). The “big two” in political communication: The effects of attacking and defending politicians’ leadership or morality. Social Psychology, 44(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000141
6.
BinderJ.ZagefkaH.BrownR.FunkeF.KesslerT.MummendeyA.MaquilA.DemoulinS.LeyensJ. P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 843–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013470
7.
BraemS.EgnerT. (2018). Getting a grip on cognitive flexibility. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(6), 470–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418787475
8.
CatellaniP.BertolottiM. (2014). The effects of counterfactual defences on social judgements. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2033
9.
CatellaniP.CovelliV. (2013). The strategic use of counterfactual communication in politics. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32(4), 480–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X13495548
10.
CohenG. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
11.
CurranP. J.HussongA. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14(2), 81–100.
12.
De DreuC. K. W.NijstadB. A.BaasM. (2011). Behavioral activation links to creativity because of increased cognitive flexibility. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610381789
13.
DhontK.van HielA. (2011). Direct contact and authoritarianism as moderators between extended contact and reduced prejudice: Lower threat and greater trust as mediators. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210391121
14.
DitrichL.LandkammerF.SassenbergK. (2019). What if my colleague was wrong and I was right? The impact of counterfactual mindsets and interpersonal focus on written communication and decision making in a hidden profile task. Acta Psychologica, 192, 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.11.003
15.
DovidioJ. F.EllerA.HewstoneM. (2011). Improving intergroup relations through direct, extended and other forms of indirect contact. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210390555
16.
DucaJ. V.SavingJ. L. (2017). Income inequality, media fragmentation, and increased political polarization. Contemporary Economic Policy, 35(2), 392–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/coep.12191
17.
DuckittJ. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(01)80004-6
18.
DudschigC.KaupB. (2018). How does “not left” become “right”? Electrophysiological evidence for a dynamic conflict-bound negation processing account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(5), 716–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000481
19.
EffronD. A. (2018). It could have been true: How counterfactual thoughts reduce condemnation of falsehoods and increase political polarization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(5), 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217746152
20.
EpstudeK.RoeseN. J. (2008). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(2), 168–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308316091
21.
EsposoS. R.HornseyM. J.SpoorJ. R. (2013). Shooting the messenger: Outsiders critical of your group are rejected regardless of argument quality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(2), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12024
22.
EstebanJ.SchneiderG. (2008). Polarization and conflict: Theoretical and empirical issues. Journal of Peace Research, 45(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343307087168
23.
GalinskyA. D.MoskowitzG. B. (2000). Counterfactuals as behavioral primes: Priming the simulation heuristic and consideration of alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(4), 384–409. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1409
24.
HameiriB.NabetE.Bar-TalD.HalperinE. (2018). Paradoxical thinking as a conflict-resolution intervention: Comparison to alternative interventions and examination of psychological mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(1), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217736048
25.
HameiriB.PoratR.Bar-TalD.BielerA.HalperinE. (2014). Paradoxical thinking as a new avenue of intervention to promote peace. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(30), 10996–11001. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407055111
26.
HameiriB.PoratR.Bar-TalD.HalperinE. (2016). Moderating attitudes in times of violence through paradoxical thinking intervention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(43), 12105–12110. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606182113
27.
HigginsE. T.BrendlC. M. (1995). Accessibility and applicability: Some “activation rules” influencing judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(3), 218–243). https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1995.1011
28.
ImhoffR.ZimmerF.KleinO.AntónioJ. H. C.BabinskaM.BangerterA.BilewiczM.BlanušaN.BovanK.BužarovskaR.CichockaA.DelouvéeS.DouglasK. M.DyrendalA.EtienneT.GjoneskaB.GrafS.GualdaE.HirschbergerG.. . . van ProoijenJ. W. (2022). Conspiracy mentality and political orientation across 26 countries. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 392–403. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01258-7
KleimanT.HassinR. R. (2013). When conflicts are good: Nonconscious goal conflicts reduce confirmatory thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(3), 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033608
31.
KleimanT.HassinR. R.TropeY. (2014). The control-freak mind: Stereotypical biases are eliminated following conflict-activated cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 498–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033047
32.
KnabN.WinterK.SteffensM. C. (2021). Flexing the extremes: Increasing cognitive flexibility with a paradoxical leading questions intervention. Social Cognition, 39(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2021.39.2.225
33.
KotzurP. F.WagnerU. (2021). The dynamic relationship between contact opportunities, positive and negative intergroup contact, and prejudice: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120, 418–442. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/pspi0000258
34.
KrayL. J.GalinskyA. D. (2003). The debiasing effect of counterfactual mind-sets: Increasing the search for disconfirmatory information in group decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00534-4
35.
KrayL. J.GalinskyA. D.WongE. M. (2006). Thinking within the box: The relational processing style elicited by counterfactual mind-sets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.33
36.
LandkammerF.SassenbergK. (2016). Competing while cooperating with the same others: The consequences of conflicting demands in co-opetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(12), 1670–1686. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000232
37.
LearyM. R.DiebelsK. J.DavissonE. K.Jongman-SerenoK. P.IsherwoodJ. C.RaimiK. T.DefflerS. A.HoyleR. H. (2017). Cognitive and interpersonal features of intellectual humility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(6), 793–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217697695
38.
LiljenquistK. A.GalinskyA. D.KrayL. J. (2004). Exploring the rabbit hole of possibilities by myself or with my group: The benefits and liabilities of activating counterfactual mind-sets for information sharing and group coordination. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.479
39.
MackieD. M.Gastardo-ConacoM. C.SkellyJ. J. (1992). Knowledge of the advocated position and the processing of in-group and out-group persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167292182005
40.
MarkmanK. D.LindbergM. J.KrayL. J.GalinskyA. D. (2007). Implications of counterfactual structure for creative generation and analytical problem solving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(3), 312–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206296106
41.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
MiklikowskaM. (2018). Empathy trumps prejudice: The longitudinal relation between empathy and anti-immigrant attitudes in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 54(4), 703–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000474
44.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2017). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide (Version 8).
45.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
46.
RoeseN. J. (1994). The functional basis of counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 805–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.805
47.
SassenbergK.MoskowitzG. B. (2005). Don’t stereotype, think different! Overcoming automatic stereotype activation by mindset priming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(5), 506–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.10.002
48.
SassenbergK.MoskowitzG. B.FettermanA.KesslerT. (2017). Priming creativity as a strategy to increase creative performance by facilitating the activation and use of remote associations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.06.010
49.
SassenbergK.WinterK.BeckerD.DitrichL.SchollA.MoskowitzG. B. (2022). Flexibility mindsets: Reducing biases that result from spontaneous processing. European Review of Social Psychology, 33(1), 171-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1959124
50.
SavaryJ.KleimanT.HassinR. R.DharR. (2015). Positive consequences of conflict on decision making: When a conflict mindset facilitates choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038551
51.
SternC.KleimanT. (2015). Know thy outgroup: Promoting accurate judgments of political attitude differences through a conflict mindset. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(8), 950–958. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615596209
52.
TauschN.HewstoneM. (2010). Social dominance orientation attenuates stereotype change in the face of disconfirming information. Social Psychology, 41(3), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000024
53.
van ProoijenJ.-W.KrouwelA. P. M.EmmerJ. (2018). Ideological responses to the EU refugee crisis: The left, the right, and the extremes. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617731501
54.
VasiljevicM.CrispR. J. (2013). Tolerance by surprise: Evidence for a generalized reduction in prejudice and increased egalitarianism through novel category combination. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e57106. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057106
55.
WinterK.SchollA.SassenbergK. (2021). A matter of flexibility: Changing outgroup attitudes through messages with negations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 956–976. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000305
56.
ZmigrodL.RentfrowP. J.RobbinsT. W. (2020). The partisan mind: Is extreme political partisanship related to cognitive inflexibility?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(3), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000661
57.
ZmigrodL.ZmigrodS.RentfrowP. J.RobbinsT. W. (2019). The psychological roots of intellectual humility: The role of intelligence and cognitive flexibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.016
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
