Improving intergroup relations with meta-perception correction interventions

Virtual contact improves intergroup relations between non-Muslim American and Muslim students from the Middle East, North Africa and Southeast Asia in a field quasi-experiment

Given the current polarized climate in many parts of the world, finding effective interventions to address psychological factors that drive conflict is critical. Direct, face-to-face contact has the demonstrated potential to stem the tide of intergroup antipathy. However, modern socio-political conflicts often span great physical distances, making direct contact difficult, costly and rare. Programs for "virtual contact" have emerged in recent years, combining text-based computer-mediated communication with live video to extend intergroup contact's benefits to broader audiences. While compelling, studies of such programs are typically conducted in laboratory settings, focusing only on change in outgroup attitudes. The current research tests how a semester-long virtual contact intervention that brings together non-Muslim US American students and Muslim students from the Middle East, North Africa and Southeast Asia shapes varied intergroup processes, across two large-scale field quasi-experiments (combined N = 2886). Compared to before the intervention and a control group, participants who engaged in virtual contact showed greater self-outgroup overlap, improved outgroup attitudes, and less outgroup dehumanization and meta-dehumanization. This research provides evidence that virtual contact can be an effective tool for promoting better intergroup relations.

People believe political opponents accept blatant moral wrongs, fueling partisan divides

Efforts to bridge political divides often focus on navigating complex and divisive issues, but eight studies reveal that we should also focus on a more basic misperception: that political opponents are willing to accept basic moral wrongs. In the United States, Democrats, and Republicans overestimate the number of political outgroup members who approve of blatant immorality (e.g. child pornography, embezzlement). This "basic morality bias" is tied to political dehumanization and is revealed by multiple methods, including natural language analyses from a large social media corpus and a survey with a representative sample of Americans. Importantly, the basic morality bias can be corrected with a brief, scalable intervention. Providing information that just one political opponent condemns blatant wrongs increases willingness to work with political opponents and substantially decreases political dehumanization.

Resolving selfish and spiteful interdependent conflict

Interdependence occurs when individuals have a stake in the success or failure of others, such that the outcomes experienced by one individual also generate costs or benefits for others. Discussion on this topic has typically focused on positive interdependence (where gains for one individual result in gains for another) and on the consequences for cooperation. However, interdependence can also be negative (where gains for one individual result in losses for another), which can spark conflict. In this article, we explain when negative interdependence is likely to arise and, crucially, the role played by (mis)perception in shaping an individual's understanding of their interdependent relationships. We argue that, owing to the difficulty in accurately perceiving interdependence with others, individuals might often be mistaken about the stake they hold in each other's outcomes, which can spark needless, resolvable forms of conflict. We then discuss when and how reducing misperceptions can help to resolve such conflicts. We argue that a key mechanism for resolving interdependent conflict, along with better sources of exogenous information, is to reduce reliance on heuristics such as stereotypes when assessing the nature of our interdependent relationships.