The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The power of being heard: The benefits of ‘perspective-giving’ in the context of intergroup conflict
Open accessAbstract
Although hundreds of dialogue programs geared towards conflict resolution are offered every year, there have been few scientific studies of their effectiveness. Across 2 studies we examined the effect of controlled, dyadic interactions on attitudes towards the ‘other’ in members of groups involved in ideological conflict. Study 1 involved Mexican immigrants and White Americans in Arizona, and Study 2 involved Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East. Cross-group dyads interacted via video and text in a brief, structured, face-to-face exchange: one person was assigned to write about the difficulties of life in their society (‘perspective-giving’), and the second person was assigned to accurately summarize the statement of the first person (‘perspective-taking’). Positive changes in attitudes towards the outgroup were greater for Mexican immigrants and Palestinians after perspective-giving and for White Americans and Israelis after perspective-taking. For Palestinians, perspective-giving to an Israeli effectively changed attitudes towards Israelis, while a control condition in which they wrote an essay on the same topic without interacting had no effect on attitudes, illustrating the critical role of being heard. Thus, the effects of dialogue for conflict resolution depend on an interaction between dialogue condition and participants' group membership, which may reflect power asymmetries.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1954) · Cited by 15,935
A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006) · Journal of personality and social psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 · Cited by 9,708 · cited 2×
“Meta-analyses of conflict resolution and prejudice reduction programs 2 generally support this theory: intergroup contact is effective in reducing intergroup 3 hostility and negative stereotypes, especially when the three conditions are met 4 (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006).”
BackgroundSocial dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.67.4.741 · Cited by 4,954
Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015141 · Cited by 4,560
Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(67)90034-0 · Cited by 1,783 · cited 2×
“The efficacy of the perspective12 giving intervention in spite of this awareness may occur (1) because observers over13 attribute corresponding beliefs, when they hear someone make an assigned statement 14 (Allison et al., 1993; Jones and Harris, 1967) or (2) because the Senders (perhaps 15 correctly) inferred that be…”
Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708 · Cited by 1,725
Eysenck, H. J. (1982) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(82)90067-8 · Cited by 1,467
Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.105 · Cited by 1,463
Power and Perspectives Not Taken
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x · Cited by 1,278
Ward, D. (1982) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1963836 · Cited by 1,242
Cited by
Prejudice Reduction: Progress and Challenges
Paluck, E. L., Porat, R., Clark, C. S., & Green, D. P. (2021) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619 · Cited by 686
AI can help people feel heard, but an AI label diminishes this impact
Yin, Y., Jia, N., & Wakslak, C. J. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2319112121 · Cited by 247
Kalla, J. L., & Broockman, D. E. (2023) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12657 · Cited by 170
Hall, A. V., Hall, E. V., & Perry, J. L. (2016) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0040109 · Cited by 167
Dodell-Feder, D., Lincoln, S. H., Coulson, J. P., & Hooker, C. I. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081279 · Cited by 155
Metadata
- Authors
- Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-07
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 855-866
- ISSN
- 0022-1031 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2143376951
- Cited by
- 346
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 31.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The power of being heard: The benefits of ‘perspective-giving’ in the context of intergroup conflict. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.017
- The paper
- Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. (2012). The power of being heard: The benefits of ‘perspective-giving’ in the context of intergroup conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.017
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
