fishbowldiscussions-research

Relevant Research

Introduction

In a groundbreaking review of 515 psychological studies, social psychologists Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp (2006) concluded that just getting different groups to spend time together reduces their prejudices toward each other.  Even more surprising, the researchers discovered that the good feelings arising from intergroup contact extend to other groups as well. In other words, if you are a White person who has been spending time with a Black person, you are also likely to develop better feelings about gay people and Middle Easterners.

But once two groups get together, what should you do? How can you maximize cross-cultural understanding, empathy, and collaboration in a short period of time?

A fishbowl discussion is one promising answer. In a fishbowl discussion, a facilitator lays ground ground rules and then orchestrates a question-and-answer session between social groups. The groups sit in two concentric circles — a “fishbowl” — with the outside circle asking questions and the inside circle discussing the answers. The session concludes with a debriefing conversation.

Researchers at Stanford University are currently evaluating the impact of fishbowl discussions on a variety of psychological and behavioral outcomes. Below are our educated guesses about how and why fishbowl discussions improve intergroup relations and individual development.

Discussion Norms

In a fishbowl discussion, the facilitator first sets out norms to help create a brave and safe space (Arao & Clemens, 2013) where participants can ask and answer sensitive questions openly and honestly. These norms include:

• Using I-statements, which help people recognize their own beliefs and lessen others’ defensiveness (Kubany, et al., 1995).
• Understanding both your intention and your impact on others, which likely encourages participants to take the perspective of listeners and frame their messages more compassionately.
• Knowing when to speak up and when to listen, which likely exposes participants to the opinions and experiences of people from less visible, less vocal, or lower status groups.

Giving Groups Equal Status

In Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) review of the intergroup contact literature, they found that giving groups equal status and shared goals in a situation more readily dispels the biases and prejudices between them. Fishbowl discussions meet this condition for successful intergroup contact by giving both cultural groups the same format, the same amount of time, the same roles, and even the same seats to ask each other questions. Sitting in a circle, rather than on a panel or in a line, also likely helps participants feel more protected and comfortable.

Learning About Others

Humans usually seek and prefer people who are like themselves — tendencies known as homophily (love of sameness, McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001) and ingroup favoritism (Efferson, C., Lalive, R., & Feh, 2008). If left unchecked, homophily and ingroup favoritism can lead us to surround ourselves with people just like us while learning very little about the vast majority of the world’s people.

Fishbowl discussions undermine our similarity-seeking tendencies by making us confront, explore, and manage our differences. Research shows that delving into our differences with others has a long list of positive effects. For instance, a study of 1,450 students at the University of Michigan showed that a course devoted to talking about racial and gender differences led students to develop more insight into how other people perceive the world, greater commitment to bridging cultural differences, and more empathy for people different from themselves (Gurin, Nagda, & Zuniga, 2013).

Seeing ‘They’ Aren’t All The Same

Another result of our tendency to hang out with people like ourselves is that we often see people in other groups as more or less the same, a phenomenon known as the outgroup homogeneity effect (Brauer, 2001). When coupled with our preference for our own groups, the outgroup homogeneity effect can lead us to treat outgroup members poorly. Fishbowl discussions may undermine the outgroup homogeneity effect — and improve our treatment of others — by showing us that “they” aren’t all the same. Just like people in our own groups, people in outgroups have a diversity of opinions and experiences, which are on display in a fishbowl discussion.

Listening to People With Less Privilege

Studies show that more privileged people give less attention and empathy to less privileged people, while less privileged people give more attention and empathy to more privileged people (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). The fishbowl discussion technique can flip this script by compelling higher status groups to ask thoughtful questions of and listen to lower status groups. The fishbowl technique also gives less privileged people experience asking questions of more powerful people, reducing their discomfort with intergroup communication.

Learning How to Talk About Yourself

A final expected result of fishbowl discussions is learning how to discuss your own cultures and identities. A widespread way of handling cultural differences in U.S. society is just not to talk about them — to pretend we are colorblind. As a result, many Americans have little experience thinking about or discussing their cultures and identities.

Yet research suggests that acknowledging and celebrating our differences has better results than does pretending we are all the same (Plaut, Thomas, & Goren, 2009). To that end, we invite you to contemplate and share your own cultural backgrounds and identities.

References

Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces. In Lisa M. Landeman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. 135-150.

Brauer, M. (2001). Intergroup perception in the social context: The effects of social status and group membership on perceived out-group homogeneity and ethnocentrism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(1), 15-31.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126.

Efferson, C., Lalive, R., & Fehr, E. (2008). The coevolution of cultural groups and ingroup favoritism. Science, 321(5897), 1844-1849.

Garrison, K., & Munday, N. K. (2012). Toward authentic dialogue: Origins of the fishbowl method and implications for writing center work. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal. University of Texas at Austin.

Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Zuniga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Highhouse, Scott. (2002). A history of the T-group and its early applications in management development. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6.4, 277- 290.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265-284.

Kubany, E. S., Bauer, G. B., Muraoka, M. Y., Richard, D. C., & Read, P. (1995). Impact of labeled anger and blame in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14(1), 53-60.

Leonard, D. J., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2011). Emotional responses to intergroup apology mediate intergroup forgiveness and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1198-1206.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415-444.

Nagda, B. R. A., Kim, C. W., & Truelove, Y. (2004). Learning about difference, learning with others, learning to transgress. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 195-214.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751.

Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for minorities?. Psychological Science, 20(4), 444-446.

Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 199-214.

Wang, Y. W., Davidson, M. M., Yakushko, O. F., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A., & Bleier, J. K. (2003). The scale of ethnocultural empathy: Development, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 221.

See Also

Higher Ed Diversity and Inclusion Toolkits Collection

Are You Ready to Talk? toolkit

Beyond the Line toolkit