Taking the Perspective of Another

Choose this exercise

Purpose: Deduce and explain how another person's values, life experiences, and constraints drive their choices in contrasting scenarios.

Use it when: Use during civic dialogue, negotiation training, or perspective-taking workshops to examine how differing personal histories shape conflicting stances.

Skip it when: Skip when the group must make an immediate real-world operational decision under tight time limits.

Group arrangement: Pairs or trios (groups of 2 or 3 participants); any total from 4 to 24 divides into pairs and trios without odd people out

Timing: 45 minutes total, matching source round allocations: 5 min intro, 10 min round 1, 15 min round 2, 5 min personal sharing, 10 min debrief

Materials and tools

• Printed Character Profiles and Decision Scenarios sheet (1 copy per participant)
• Shared whiteboard, chart paper, or digital workspace
• Dry-erase markers or sticky notes and scratch paper for each group

Before participants arrive

1. Print 1 copy of the Character Profiles and Decision Scenarios sheet per participant, or prepare the text in a shared digital workspace.
2. Set up a shared board with two columns labeled Character A: Maya and Character B: Arthur.

Say this to open

Today we will practice looking at decisions through the eyes of two different people. You will examine their backgrounds, values, and experiences to deduce what choices they would make in two different situations. We will form small groups, read two character profiles, and start with our first scenario.

How to run it

1. Introduce activity and review profiles 5 minutes

   Welcome the group and explain the objective using the opening script. Have participants self-organize into pairs or trios with nearby peers. Hand out the character profile sheet to each person. Give participants 2 minutes to read Maya and Arthur's profiles silently.

2. Run round 1 on warm-up scenario 10 minutes

   Direct attention to Scenario 1 (vacation choice). In pairs or trios, participants discuss which vacation Maya would pick and which Arthur would pick, identifying the specific values driving each choice. Each group records their two decisions and brief rationales on the main shared board.

3. Run round 2 on policy dilemma 15 minutes

   Direct attention to Scenario 2 (affordable housing versus parkland preservation). In their groups, participants analyze how Maya and Arthur would each respond to the city council vote, citing the character's background, values, and constraints. Each group records their predictions on the shared board.

4. Share personal viewpoints optionally 5 minutes

   Invite participants within their small groups to discuss how they personally would resolve the parkland dilemma. State clearly that anyone may pass, listen, or speak strictly about policy tradeoffs without stating a personal stance.

5. Debrief character rationales as a full room 10 minutes

   Convene the full group. Review the posted decisions on the board. Take 3 or 4 brief comments comparing how groups interpreted Maya and Arthur, noting where rationales agreed or diverged. Choose two debrief questions from the list provided and ask them to the full group.

Debrief questions

• What similarities or differences do you notice across the decisions different groups assigned to the same character?
• Did you rely more on a character's stated values, personal history, or role constraints when predicting their choice?
• When considering the housing dilemma, what made it challenging to hold two opposing viewpoints fairly?

Finished output: A shared board displaying the predicted choices and underlying rationales of two distinct characters across two scenarios.

Remote

Run in an online meeting platform with breakout rooms of 2 or 3 people. Share the participant sheet via a shared digital document. Have each breakout group post their decisions to a shared digital board or chat window before returning to the main room.

Hybrid

Seat in-person participants together and remote participants in virtual breakout rooms. Both post decisions to a shared digital document visible on the room projector and shared screen. Call on in-person and remote groups alternately during the full-group debrief.

Access and participation choices

• Participants may write notes silently, speak aloud, or let another group member record points.
• Personal sharing in step 4 is explicitly optional; participants may remain in analytical mode or pass without disclosure.
• Written profile cards and scenario text provide visual support alongside spoken instructions.

If the session gets stuck

Participants invent wild character traits not supported by the profiles.

Remind participants to anchor their predictions directly in the facts, values, and experiences listed on the profile sheet.

Groups get stuck arguing which housing policy is objectively superior.

Intervene to clarify that the goal is perspective deduction for each character, not settling on an optimal city policy.

Terms used here

• Perspective Taking: The deliberate practice of viewing a situation through another person's values, background, and constraints rather than your own.