Empathy is important for resolving intergroup conflicts. However, people often tend to feel less empathy toward people who do not belong to their social group (i.e., outgroup members). We propose that this tendency is due, in part, to the belief that empathy is a limited resource. To overcome this issue, we develop an intervention synthesizing psychology and art to increase the belief that empathy is unlimited. In six studies (n = 2118), we find that the more people believe empathy is limited, the less outgroup empathy they experience. Moreover, leading people to believe that empathy is unlimited increase outgroup empathy, leads to greater support for prosocial actions toward outgroup members, and encourages more empathic behaviors toward outgroup members in face-to-face intergroup interactions. These intervention effects are observed across various intergroup contexts involving different ethnic, national, religious, and political groups. Thus, changing beliefs about empathy may improve intergroup relations, and conveying this belief through art may promote social change.

Research shows that inclusive identities are effective for improving intergroup relations. Little work, however, asked what happens once a sense of common identity is formed, but then lost. Given increasing diversity and integration attempts that might fail, this question is realistic and timely. We studied a religious minority in Israel, Arab-Druze ( N = 178), constituting 1.6% of the population. Druze have always had strong common ties with the Jewish majority, particularly younger Druze who serve in the Israeli army. We surveyed Druze in the aftermath of the nationality bill, which was considered by many to be highly exclusionary toward non-Jews. Drawing on research on minority exclusion, we expected that for younger Druze, a sense of common identity loss will predict radical forms of action. This was supported by our cross-sectional data and remained stable after controlling for more classic predictors of violent and nonviolent action.

Even though gender inequality is evident across life domains, women often justify the gender hierarchy. We examined whether the very closeness that heterosexual women share with their male romantic partners predicts their justification of gender inequality. We drew on intergroup-related research, showing that positive perceptions that minority groups develop within harmonious intergroup interactions, generalize to affect their views of group-based inequality. We expected that to the extent that women experience their romantic relationships positively, they will be more accepting of gender inequality within their homes, and these perceptions will generalize to predict justification of macro-level gender inequality. Five correlational and two experimental studies supported this prediction. The more women rated (or were primed with) their relationship as positive, the more they justified the gender social system. This was mediated by women’s perception of their housework division as fair, and was less pronounced among feminists. Implications regarding social change are discussed.

Civilian casualties contribute to the perpetuation of intergroup conflicts through increased radicalization and hostilities, but little is known on the psychological processes that affect responses to outgroup civilian casualties. The goal of the present research was to explore two factors expected to lead group members to act more cautiously, thereby reducing civilian casualties: perceived accountability and forecast group-based moral emotions. In two studies, Jewish–Israeli civilians (Study 1) and soldiers (Study 2) were asked to forecast their group-based moral emotions in case of Palestinian (i.e., outgroup) civilian casualties, then exposed to accountability manipulations. Participants who expected to feel low levels of shame and were primed with accountability made more cautious decisions than those in the control condition. Participants who expected to feel high levels of shame were unaffected by accountability primes. Theoretical and practical implications regarding forecast moral emotions and accountability as an intervention in intergroup conflicts are discussed.