Why We Struggle to Understand People Outside Our Social Groups

A recent study reveals that individuals find it significantly harder to accurately infer the thoughts and feelings of people outside their social groups, relying instead on first impressions and stereotypes. This cognitive hurdle underscores the need for deeper engagement in conversations, especially in science communication, where overcoming societal divides is essential.

When conversing with someone we don’t know or don’t know very well, we rely heavily on first impressions and stereotypes. But is it because of a lack of willingness to try to understand someone else, or is it because of cognitive limitations? That is what a recent study tried to find out. Conducted by researchers Bryony Payne, Geoffrey Bird, and Caroline Catmur, the study is published in Scientific Reports, and it reveals the significant challenges individuals face when inferring the thoughts and feelings—referred to as mental states—of those outside their social groups, known as out-groups.

The test of 256 individuals shows that we are much more capable of correctly predicting the social and political beliefs of the people who are part of our social groups (in-group members) while we struggle with those who are not part of them (out-group). This was assessed through the chance that every participant had to ask up to five questions to others before trying to infer their mental state. Despite seeking equivalent or greater information about out-groups, they made significantly less accurate predictions regarding out-group mental states. This is hardly surprising: we are better at understanding people we know a little bit more and who are more similar to us.

Implications for Science Communication

From a communication perspective, there was another interesting element. Members of the science communication community around Europe and the world know very well that building a constructive dialogue with people we know who have different opinions from ours is complicated. It happened during the COVID-19 pandemic with anti-vaccination groups, and it happens all the time with climate crisis deniers. And it seems like we don’t even want to try to really understand other people’s positions.

In the Payne, Bird and Catmur experiment, participants generally asked fewer than five of the possible questions. They tended to limit themselves to the amount of information they considered sufficient to make a more accurate assessment. In other words, they stopped asking for additional information before they had the fullest possible picture of the other person’s opinions. In the study, the researchers concluded that the difficulties in accurately inferring the mental states of out-groups stem from a poorer cognitive representation, not from a reduced propensity to think about those minds. This means that people’s misconceptions about the beliefs and attitudes of opposing groups can exacerbate societal divisions.

As communicators, especially science communicators, this could indicate that the old adagio of “know your audience” is more important than ever. We should take advantage of any opportunity to better understand how people think and feel.

Link to the original paper: Poorer representation of minds underpins less accurate mental state inference for out-groups