Perspective taking benefits high-power groups while perspective giving benefits low-power groups.

Evidence

For example, Bruneau and Saxe (2012) demonstrated that lowpower groups benefitted from perspective giving rather than perspective taking, whereas the opposite was true for highpower groups in contexts of intractable conflict (Israel–Palestine) and structural violence (immigration). One reason may be that low-power groups are well acquainted with the perspectives of those in power, given that these views shape society. Conversely, and in line with the needs-based model of reconciliation, it may be a rare opportunity of empowerment when members of low-power groups experience their voice being heard. — Johanna Ray Vollhardt and Michelle Sinayobye Twali, Emotion-Based Reconciliation Requires…, 46

Categorization

  • XREF: Empirical confirmation that reconciliation mechanisms are asymmetric across power positions — bearing directly on the reader’s working question. — connects to: Emotion-based reconciliation frameworks ignore power asymmetries and can entrench injustice. — Johanna Ray Vollhardt and Michelle Sinayobye Twali, Emotion-Based Reconciliation Requires…, 70; Taking another group’s perspective activates self-concept and increases perceived self-other overlap — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 1091
  • SHARE: The reverse asymmetry (perspective giving vs. taking) is a striking finding a social psychologist colleague would recognize.

Broader Connections