In three studies, we examined whether activating a reasoning process that fosters the consideration of alternatives (a conflict mindset) reduces the extent to which individuals consistently overestimate how different outgroup members’ attitudes are from their own attitudes. In Study 1, tacitly activating a conflict mindset reduced the overestimation of outgroup dissimilarity compared to a control condition. Study 2 ruled out the alternative explanation that conflict reduces the tendency to overestimate outgroup dissimilarity through diminishing effortful thought. Study 3 showed that a conflict mindset, but not an accuracy incentive, reduced the tendency to overestimate outgroup dissimilarity. Additionally, Study 3 demonstrated that reductions in perceived self–outgroup distance explained in part why a conflict mindset attenuated the overestimation of outgroup dissimilarity. Implications for social judgment accuracy are discussed.
AbramowitzA. I.SaundersK. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth?The Journal of Politics, 70, 542–555.
2.
AronA.AronE. N.SmollanD. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.
3.
BarghJ. A. (2006). What have we been priming all these years? On the development, mechanisms, and ecology of nonconscious social behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 147–168.
4.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
5.
ChambersJ. R.BaronR. S.InmanM. L. (2006). Misperceptions in intergroup conflict: Disagreeing about what we disagree about. Psychological Science, 17, 38–45.
6.
ClementR. W.KruegerJ. (2002). Social categorization moderates social projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 219–231.
7.
De DreuC. K. (2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 280–295.
8.
DiDonatoT. E.UllrichJ.KruegerJ. I. (2011). Social perception as induction and inference: An integrative model of intergroup differentiation, ingroup favoritism, and differential accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 66–83.
9.
EpleyN.KeysarB.Van BovenL.GilovichT. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 327–339.
10.
EyalT.EpleyN. (2010). How to seem telepathic: Enabling mind reading by matching construal. Psychological Science, 21, 700–705.
11.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
12.
GalinskyA. D.KrayL. J. (2004). From thinking about what might have been to sharing what we know: The effects of counterfactual mindsets on information sharing in groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 606–618.
13.
GalinskyA. D.MoskowitzG. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and ingroup favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708–724.
14.
GollwitzerP. M. (1990). Action phases and mindsets. Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, 2, 53–92.
15.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PloS One, 7, e50092.
16.
GreeneS. (2004). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 136–153.
17.
HarknessA. R.DeBonoK. G.BorgidaE. (1985). Personal involvement and strategies for making contingency judgments: A stake in the dating game makes a difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 22–32.
18.
HawkinsC. B.NosekB. A. (2012). Motivated independence? Implicit party identity predicts political judgments among self-proclaimed independents. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1437–1452.
19.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J. (2013). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451–470.
20.
HewstoneM.BrownR. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the “contact hypothesis.” In HewstoneM.BrownR. (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1–44). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
21.
HuangJ. Y.BarghJ. A. (2014). The selfish goal: Autonomously operating motivational structures as the proximate cause of human judgment and behavior. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 37, 121–135.
22.
HuangL.GalinskyA. D. (2011). Mind–body dissonance: Conflict between the senses expands the mind’s horizons. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 351–359.
23.
JonesP. E. (2004). False consensus in social context: Differential projection and perceived social distance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 417–429.
24.
JuddC. M.ParkB. (1993). Definition and assessment of accuracy in social stereotypes. Psychological Review, 100, 109–128.
25.
KinderD. R. (1978). Political person perception: The asymmetrical influence of sentiment and choice on perceptions of presidential candidates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 859–871.
26.
KleimanT.HassinR. R. (2013). When conflicts are good: Nonconscious goal conflicts reduce confirmatory thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 374–387.
27.
KruegerJ.ClementR. W. (1994). The truly false consensus effect: An ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 596–610.
28.
KruegerJ.ZeigerJ. S. (1993). Social categorization and the truly false consensus effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 670–680.
29.
KruglanskiA. W.FreundT. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448–468.
30.
MullenB.DovidioJ. F.JohnsonC.CopperC. (1992). In-group-outgroup differences in social projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 422–440.
31.
MussweilerT. (2014). Same or different? How similarity versus dissimilarity focus shapes social information processing. In ShermanJ. W.GawronskiB.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories of the social mind (pp. 328–339). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
32.
NickersonR. S. (2001). The projective way of knowing: A useful heuristic that sometimes misleads. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 168–172.
33.
RikettaM. (2005). Cognitive differentiation between self, ingroup, and outgroup: The roles of identification and perceived intergroup conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 97–106.
34.
RikettaM.SacramentoC. A. (2008). ‘They cooperate with us, so they are like me’: Perceived intergroup relationship moderates projection from self to outgroups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 115–131.
35.
RobbinsJ. M.KruegerJ. I. (2005). Social projection to ingroups and outgroups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 32–47.
36.
RobinsonR. J.KeltnerD.WardA.RossL. (1995). Actual versus assumed differences in construal: “Naive realism” in intergroup perception and conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 404–417.
37.
SaguyT.KteilyN. (2011). Inside the opponent’s head: Perceived losses in group position predict accuracy in metaperceptions between groups. Psychological Science, 22, 951–958.
38.
SassenbergK.MoskowitzG. B. (2005). Don’t stereotype, think different! Overcoming automatic stereotype activation by mindset priming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 506–514.
39.
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, 1–6.
40.
SchererA. M.WindschitlP. D.GrahamJ. (2015). An ideological house of mirrors: Political stereotypes as exaggerations of motivated social cognition differences. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 201–209.
41.
SheltonJ. N.RichesonJ. A. (2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 91–107.
42.
SmithA. R.WindschitlP. D. (2011). Biased calculations: Numeric anchors influence answers to math equations. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 139–146.
43.
SternC.WestT. V.SchmittP. G. (2014). The liberal illusion of uniqueness. Psychological Science, 25, 137–144.
44.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 94–109). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
45.
ToddA. R.BurgmerP. (2013). Perspective taking and automatic intergroup evaluation change: Testing an associative self-anchoring account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 786–802.
46.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM.OakesP.ReicherS.WetherellM. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
47.
WestT. V.KennyD. A. (2011). The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychological Review, 118, 357–378.
48.
WestfallJ.Van BovenL.ChambersJ. R.JuddC. M. (2015). Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 145–158.
49.
XuA. J.WyerR. S.Jr. (2008). The comparative mindset: From animal comparisons to increased purchase intentions. Psychological Science, 19, 859–864.
50.
ZurH. B.BreznitzS. J. (1981). The effect of time pressure on risky choice behavior. Acta Psychologica, 47, 89–104.
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.
