Chapter 3 — CLaims & Ratings
Overall: Centered around contact theory and its related claims, this chapter’s foundation is one of the most well-studied areas in the social sciences. The majority of claims in this chapter have been tested in diverse contexts, across hundreds of studies with thousands of participants.
Claim 3.1: People naturally empathize more with members of their in-groups, as compared to outsiders.
Research suggests that preferential empathy for our in-group is a distinct psychological process from the lack of empathy or hostility displayed towards out-groups. The theory behind increased empathy for members of our in-group is substantiated in a range of populations and contexts, and in-group identification has clear implications for empathy across situations.
Claim 3.2: We fail to empathize—and often experience antipathy—in competitive contexts.
This is well documented in psychological, political, and neuroscientific literature.
Claim 3.3: Contact generally increases empathy for outsiders.
This effect has been demonstrated in hundreds of studies and meta-analyses over the past several decades.
Claim 3.4: Contact can bolster empathy for outsiders amid conflict or competition.
Based mostly on a large-scale meta analysis, this effect has been robustly demonstrated outside of the lab, with a small but meaningful effect size, even in serious, deep-seated conflicts.
Claim 3.5: Specific conditions (for example, those laid out by Gordon Allport) are necessary in order for contact to foster empathy toward outsiders.
There are many studies documenting differences in the effects of contact across situations, but little agreement about which parameters are required for contact to “work,” as reflected in a recent meta-analysis.